alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated  balance sheet and  consolidated  statement of  operations  for the
quarter  ended  September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001078037
<NAME>                        REMEDENT USA, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.000
<CASH>                                         19854
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  19254
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3000)
<INVENTORY>                                    112594
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203448
<PP&E>                                         58811
<DEPRECIATION>                                 32533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 257410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          921305
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       12883
<OTHER-SE>                                     (676778)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   257410
<SALES>                                        221459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               221459
<CGS>                                          76283
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  394398
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             95444
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (344666)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (344666)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (344666)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>



</TABLE>
#### Shelby R. MULFORD v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 49655.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 1, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1978.

Fred L. Cooper, James R. Davis, Columbia, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Billy L. Gore, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; R. I. Prichard, III, Judge.

Before INZER, P. J., SUGG and LEE, JJ., and CLARENCE E. MORGAN, Jr., C.

AFFIRMED.

PATTERSON, C. J., SMITH, P. J., and ROBERTSON, WALKER, BROOM and BOWLING, JJ., concur.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3308 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number of local wage 

areas allowable within a General Schedule pay locality. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2023 

Mr. CASEY (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Ms. WARREN, and Mr. FETTERMAN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to limit the number 

of local wage areas allowable within a General Schedule 

pay locality. 

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 ‘‘Locality Pay Equity 

5 Act of 2023’’. 

2 

•S 3308 IS

1 SEC. 2. LIMITING THE NUMBER OF LOCAL WAGE AREAS DE2 FINED WITHIN A GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY 

3 LOCALITY. 

4 (a) LOCAL WAGE AREA LIMITATION.—Section 

5 5343(a) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— 

6 (1) in paragraph (1)(B)(i), by striking ‘‘(but 

7 such’’ and all that follows through ‘‘are employed)’’; 

8 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking ‘‘and’’ after 

9 the semicolon; 

10 (3) in paragraph (5), by striking the period 

11 after ‘‘Islands’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

12 (4) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(6) the Office of Personnel Management shall 

14 define not more than 1 local wage area within a pay 

15 locality, except that this paragraph shall not apply 

16 to the pay locality designated as ‘Rest of United 

17 States’.’’. 

18 (b) GENERAL SCHEDULE PAY LOCALITY DE19 FINED.—Section 5342(a) of title 5, United States Code, 

20 is amended— 

21 (1) in paragraph (2)(C), by striking ‘‘and’’ 

22 after the semicolon; 

23 (2) in paragraph (3), by striking the period 

24 after ‘‘employee’’ and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

25 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

3 

•S 3308 IS

1 ‘‘(4) ‘pay locality’ has the meaning given that 

2 term under section 5302.’’. 

3 SEC. 3. REGULATIONS. 

4 The Director of the Office of Personnel Management 

5 shall prescribe any regulations necessary to carry out the 

6 purpose of this Act, including regulations to ensure that 

7 the enactment of this Act shall not have the effect of re8 ducing any rate of basic pay payable to any individual who 

9 is serving as a prevailing rate employee (as defined under 

10 section 5342(a)(2) of title 5, United States Code). 

11 SEC. 4. APPLICABILITY. 

12 The amendments made by this Act shall apply on and 

13 after the first day of the first full pay period beginning 

14 at least 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### INTERLINK COTTON GIN COMPANY, INC. v. ELMER TALLANT INSURANCE AGENCY.

Civ. 1488.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Aug. 23, 1978.

J. L. Chestnut, Jr., for Chestnut, Sanders & Sanders, Selma, for appellant.

Robert W. Dick, Montgomery, for appel-lee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

Defendant appeals from the denial of a motion for new trial.

Plaintiff brought suit on account for an unpaid insurance premium. Defendant counterclaimed for breach of an agreement to insure. The complaint and counterclaim were brought to issue and set for trial by jury. Defendant and counterclaimant moved for and was granted a continuance to the next scheduled docket.

At the next setting, on January 24, 1978, the record contains a judgment entry by default after jury verdict in favor of plaintiff and dismissal of defendant’s counterclaim for want of prosecution. Such entry was made in accordance with Rule 55(b)(2), ARCP, after defendant failed to appear for trial.

Defendant thereafter on February 3, 1978, filed a motion for new trial. Such motion is not proper procedure in this case, but it is being considered by this court as a motion to set aside the judgment by default under Rule 55(c), ARCP.

The motion alleges three grounds, all of which complain that defendant was not given timely and proper notice of the taking of the judgment. The argument in brief of defendant-appellant charges that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance and a new trial. There is a statement of facts in the brief but no transcript of evidence taken on the hearing of the motion nor affidavits in support thereof. Thus the statement of facts is not supported by a record. This court has noth-*605mg before it to review in support of defendant’s argument. Whether a trial court abused its discretion is a matter to be determined in light of the events at the time. There being no record of the matters before the trial court at the time of its consideration of and ruling upon the motion, this court must presume its action to be correct and affirm its judgment. *Logan v. O’Barr,*271 Ala. 94, 122 So.2d 376 (1960); Harvey v. *Department of Public Safety,*56 Ala.App. 660, 325 So.2d 170 (1976).

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WILLIAM BALDWIN 

Petitioner,

v.

MARILYN S. BROOKS, et al., 

 Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civ. A. No. 06-10 Erie

District Judge Cohill 

Magistrate Judge Baxter

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

[Document # 1] be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

II. REPORT

When submitting a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the Petitioner is required to

submit “an affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such prisoner possesses that the person

is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). In addition to the

afore-mentioned affidavit, Petitioner is further required to “submit a certified copy of the trust fund

account statement (or institutional equivalent) for the prisoner for the 6-month period immediately

preceding the filing of the complaint or notice of appeal, obtained from the appropriate official of

each prison at which the prisoner is or was confined.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2).

In this case, Petitioner has failed to submit a copy of his institutional account statement,

certified or otherwise. Because Petitioner has failed to comply with the statutory prerequisites for

proceeding In Forma Pauperis, Petitioner’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis should be

denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

Case 1:06-cv-00010-MBC-SPB Document 3 Filed 01/20/06 Page 1 of 2
2

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, it is respectfully recommended that the Petitioner’s Motion

to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [Document # 1] be denied and the case dismissed without prejudice.

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Rule

72.1.4(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrates, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of

service to file objections to this report and recommendation. Any party opposing the objections

shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file

timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/Susan Paradise Baxter 

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated: January 19, 2006

cc: The Honorable Maurice B. Cohill

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00010-MBC-SPB Document 3 Filed 01/20/06 Page 2 of 2
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2667]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[OR-958-0777-63; GP6-0215; OR-19604 (WA)]


Public Land Order No. 7239; Revocation of Executive Order Dated 
February 6, 1915; Washington

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public Land Order.

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

SUMMARY: This order revokes in its entirety an Executive order which 
withdrew 38.90 acres of public lands for the Bureau of Land 
Management's Powersite Reserve No. 479. The lands are no longer needed 
for the purpose for which they were withdrawn. Of the lands being 
revoked, 25 acres will remain closed to surface entry and mining due to 
another existing withdrawal. These lands have been and will remain open 
to mineral leasing. The remaining 13.90-acres have been conveyed out of 
Federal ownership with a reservation for coal, and will not be restored 
to the operation of the public land laws, including the mining laws.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Betty McCarthy, BLM Oregon/Washington 
State Office, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208-2965, 503-952-6155.
    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
    1. The Executive Order dated February 6, 1915, which established 
Powersite Reserve No. 479, is hereby revoked in its entirety:

Willamette Meridian

T. 12 N., R. 5 E.,
    Sec. 32, lots 8 and 9.

    The areas described aggregate 38.90 acres in Lewis County.

    2. The following described land has been conveyed out of Federal 
ownership, with a reservation of coal to the United States, and will 
not be restored to the operation of the public land laws, including the 
mining laws. The land has been and continues to be open to applications 
and offers under the mineral leasing laws for coal.

Willamette Meridian

T. 12 N., R. 5 E.,
    Sec. 32, lot 8.

    The area described contains 13.90 acres in Lewis County.

    3. The following described land is included in Power Project No. 
2016 and remains withdrawn from operation of the public land laws, 
including the mining laws. The land has been and continues to be open 
to applications and offers under the mineral leasing laws:

Willamette Meridian

T. 12 N., R. 5 E.,
    Sec. 32, lot 9.

    The area described contains 25 acres in Lewis County.

    Signed: January 23, 1997
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 97-2667 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-33-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27301]



[[Page 53805]]

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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (97-150)]


NASA Advisory Council (NAC), Space Science Advisory Committee 
(SScAC), Solar System Exploration Subcommittee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 
92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
announces a meeting of the NASA Advisory Council, Space Science 
Advisory Committee, Solar System Exploration Subcommittee.

DATES: Wednesday, November 19, 1997, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; and 
Thursday, November 20, 1997, 8:30-5:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Program 
Review Center, Room 9H44, 300 E Street, SW, Washington, DC 205446.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Pilcher, Code S, National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-
2470.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public up to 
the capacity of the room. The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

--Revisit issues from April
--OSS update
--Breckenridge review and strategic plans status
--Process for outer planet mission sequence decisions
--Launch year sensitivities
--Mars program issues

    It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. Visitors 
will be requested to sign a visitor's register.

    Dated: October 7, 1997.
Alan M. Ladwig,
Associate Administrator for Policy and Plans, National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-27301 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
#### PAISANO’S CORPORATION and JAMES STEPHENS, Appellants v. BLUE PACIFIC MANAGEMENT CORP., Appellee

High Court of American Samoa Appellate Division

AP No. 6-93

December 7, 1993

Before RICHMOND, Associate Justice.

Counsel: For Appellants, Roy J.D. Hall, Jr.

For Appellee, William H. Reardon

Order Directing Motion for Order in Aid of Judgment to Trial Division:

*76Appellee’s motion for an order in aid of judgment came regularly for hearing on July 6, 1993. Both appellants and appellee appeared by counsel.

The motion is improperly before the Appellate Division of the High Court of American Samoa. Once jurisdiction over a matter is within the province of a cqurt, that jurisdiction continues to be in fprce regarding judgments arising out of the litigation. As stated in *State*v. *Pritchard,*138 N.E.2d 233, 235 (Ind. 1956): "It is well established that once a court acquires jurisdiction over parties, the jurisdiction continues until the final disposition of the litigation including the enforcement of the judgment or decree." In *Central National Bank v. Stevens,*169 US 432, 459 (1898), the ¡Supreme Court noted: "It is a doctrine of law too long established to require a citation of authorities, that, where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide every question which occurs in the cause . . . ." This authority clearly extends to enforcing judgments, and removing obstacles to that judgment, *Akers v. Stephenson, 469*S.W.2d 704, 706 (Ky 1970).

This motion rightfully belongs in the province of the Trial Division. Therefore, without expressing an opinion on the merits, this motion is hereby directed to the Trial Division for further proceedings.

It is so ordered.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.4    
  


 
 
 

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 Annual Report of TPG N.V. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period
ended 31 December 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, A.D. Jones, Group Managing
Director Express of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 result of operations of the Company. 







	19 February 2003	 	 
	 	 	 
	

/s/  A.D. JONES      
 A.D. Jones

Group Managing Director Express

	
 	

 











QuickLinks


Exhibit 10.4

CERTIFICATION – A.D. Jones, Group Managing Director Express, TPG N.V.
May 17, 2011

Mr. Jared BlumenfeldRegional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

Dear Mr. Blumenfeld:On August 24, 2007, the Air Resources Board (ARB) submitted revisions to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP) that included the Imperial County Air Pollution ControlDistrict (District) Rule 217, Large Confined Animal Facilities Permits Required.

The District has formally requested in a May 3, 2011, letter (copy enclosed) that ARB

withdraw this rule from consideration by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as a

SIP revision because of approvability issues with the rule. Accordingly, by this letter, weare withdrawing this rule as a revision to the SIP.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss this request, please contact

Mr. Michael J. Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section at (916) 322-6025.

Since ely,

Robert D. FletcherDeputy Executive OfficerEnclosure

cc: See next page.

The energy challenge facing California is real Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce energy consumption.

For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand and cut your energy costs, see our website http.//www.arb ca nov

California Environmental Protection Agency

Printed on Recycled Paper
p

y 

150 South gth Street

El Centro, California 92243-2850

Mr. Michael J. Guzzetta, Manager

Rule Evaluation Section

Stationary Source Division
#### The TEXAS CO., a corporation, Appellant, v. Daisy GUY, Appellee.

No. 69-650.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 15, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NO. 90-155 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1991

GILT EDGE MINING CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and BLUE RANGE MINING CO., a corporation, Plaintiffs and Respondents,

GOLDENMAPLE MINING AND LEACHING CO., INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent, and SERONA RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Fergus, The Honorable John Warner, Judgepresiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Robert L. Johnson, Lewistown, Montana For Respondent: James M. Regnier; Regnier, Lewis & Boland; Great Falls,Montana JonA. Oldenburg, Lewistown, Montana Patricia OtBrienCotter; Cotter & Cotter; Great Falls,Montana

Filed: Submitted on Briefs: December 20, 1990 Decided: February 1, 1991 iP

f ClerkJusticeR. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Serona Resources Corporation appeals an order of the Tenth Judicial District, Fergus County, granting an order of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs/respondents Gilt Edge Mining Corporation and Blue RangeMining Company. Rule 56 (c)

### ,M.R.Civ.P., statesthat summary judgment shallbe granted upon request, "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that themoving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Serona Resources, as a sublessee,maintains that it has a right to mine certain claims owned by plaintiffs/respondents. However, it isuncontested that the lease between Gilt Edge Mining Corporation and Golden Maple Mining Company, who purportedly subleased the claim to Serona, required Gilt Edge's written consent before any sublease would be valid. This consentwas not givenby Gilt Edge;nor is there any evidence that Gilt Edge acquiesced to the sublease or otherwisewaived its rights under the lease agreement with Golden Maple. It is therefore clear, this sublease is not binding upon the plaintiffs/respondents asamatter of law. Section 70-26-103,MCA. The District Court's order granting summary judgment is affirmed. Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Operating Rules, thisdecision shall notbe cited asprecedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to West publishing Company. Let remittitur issue forthwith. Justice 

### / /
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-76526, 33-80454, 33-88302, 333-2818, 333-07457, 333-62517, 333-62983, 333-64139, 333-68161, 333-49004, 333-61412, 333-76826, 333-150011) of Rural/Metro Corporation of our report datedSeptember 15, 2008 relating to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K. 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Phoenix, Arizona 

September 15, 2008