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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1996
<CASH>                                             571
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          73,495
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,134
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                         40,167
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,314
<OTHER-SE>                                         818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,485
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,610
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,730
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   191
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    689
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .44
        

</TABLE>
#### Henry C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. C. WARMACK, d/b/a Warmack’s Used Cars, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2983.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1970.

Rehearing Denied March 11, 1970.

Thomas A. Self, Many, for plaintiff-appellant.

James L. Davis, Many, for defendant-appellee.

Before TATE, FRUGÉ, and HOOD, JJ.

TATE, Judge.

The plaintiff purchaser sues the defendant seller for damages. The claim is based upon alleged redhibitory defects in a vehicle sold; also upon an alleged wrongful retention of possession and seizure, resulting from the seller’s assertion of a privilege for the repairing of the defects. The plaintiff appeals from the dismissal of his suit.

We have discussed all issues of this litigation in our disposition this day of a companion appeal arising out of the same transaction. 231 So.2d 636. With regard to the merits, we there concluded that the repaired defects were not of a redhibitory nature existing at the time of the sale, and that the seller was entitled (because of his privilege for making the repairs) to retain possession of the repaired vehicle until paid.

Accordingly, for the reasons more fully discussed in the companion decision, we affirm the dismissal of this suit by the District Court. The plaintiff-appellant is to pay all costs.

Affirmed.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.
EXHIBIT 23.1


CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC
ACCOUNTING FIRM

To the Board
of Directors
Vital Signs, Inc.

We hereby
consent to the incorporation of our reports dated December 14, 2007 included in
this Form 10-K, on the consolidated financial statements of Vital Signs, Inc.
as of September 30, 2007 and 2006 and for each of the three years ended
subsequent to September 30, 2007 and on managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 30,
2007, into the Companys previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Nos. 33-40586, 33-43702, 33-47298, 33-73800, 333-09705, 333-37927, 333-111807
and 333-111808).

GOLDSTEIN GOLUB
KESSLER LLPNew York, New York
December 14, 2007


59

---
#### In re James MARTIN, alias v. STATE of Alabama. Ex parte James Martin, alias.

77-705.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 25, 1978.

Frank L. Thiemonge, III, Montgomery, for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks to have this Court review by writ of certiorari a “No Opinion” affirmance of his conviction of the offense of first degree burglary. Petitioner does not invoke Rule 39(k), ARAP. Additionally, the “conflict” ground sought to be asserted does not cite any case alleged to be in conflict with the instant holding by the Court of Criminal Appeals, 361 So.2d 1142, nor does it specify wherein the alleged conflict exists. See Form 22, Appendix I, ARAP.

Thus, the petition for the writ is denied.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JAN-02-1999    
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-03-1998    
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-03-1998    
<CASH>                                         2,135,307    
<SECURITIES>                                   1,669,651    
<RECEIVABLES>                                  5,448,993    
<ALLOWANCES>                                     264,453    
<INVENTORY>                                    5,986,501    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              15,376,942    
<PP&E>                                         6,698,280    
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,517,383    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                23,065,439    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,599,342    
<BONDS>                                                0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0    
<PREFERRED>                                            0    
<COMMON>                                         869,007    
<OTHER-SE>                                    14,875,303    
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  23,065,439    
<SALES>                                       39,569,202    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              39,569,202    
<CGS>                                         30,777,968    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 35,612,897    
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  36,000    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 9,648    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,920,305    
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,417,000    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,503,305    
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0    
<CHANGES>                                              0    
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,503,305    
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       0.69    
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.64    
                                              


</TABLE>
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Statement of Enforcement Principles Regarding

“Unfair Methods of Competition” Under Section 5 of the FTC Act

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act declares “unfair methods of competition 

in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful. 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1). Section 5’s ban on unfair 

methods of competition encompasses not only those acts and practices that violate the Sherman 

or Clayton Act but also those that contravene the spirit of the antitrust laws and those that, if 

allowed to mature or complete, could violate the Sherman or Clayton Act. 

Congress chose not to define the specific acts and practices that constitute unfair methods 

of competition in violation of Section 5, recognizing that application of the statute would need to 

evolve with changing markets and business practices. Instead, it left the development of Section 

5 to the Federal Trade Commission as an expert administrative body, which would apply the 

statute on a flexible case-by-case basis, subject to judicial review. This statement is intended to 

provide a framework for the Commission’s exercise of its “standalone” Section 5 authority to 

address acts or practices that are anticompetitive but may not fall within the scope of the 

Sherman or Clayton Act.

In deciding whether to challenge an act or practice as an unfair method of competition in 

violation of Section 5 on a standalone basis, the Commission adheres to the following principles:

• the Commission will be guided by the public policy underlying the antitrust laws, 

namely, the promotion of consumer welfare;

• the act or practice will be evaluated under a framework similar to the rule of reason, 

that is, an act or practice challenged by the Commission must cause, or be likely to 

cause, harm to competition or the competitive process, taking into account any 

associated cognizable efficiencies and business justifications; and

• the Commission is less likely to challenge an act or practice as an unfair method of 

competition on a standalone basis if enforcement of the Sherman or Clayton Act is 

sufficient to address the competitive harm arising from the act or practice.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary

August 13, 2015
---

**EXHIBIT 99.14**

CONSENT OF AUTHOR

****

****

Joanna Goeller, Environmental Impact Assessment Practitioner
Knight Piesold (Pty) Ltd TC Watermeyer Centre Cnr. Rivonia Blvd and
10thAvenue Rivonia, 2128 South Africa

US Securities and Exchange Commission

I, Joanna Goeller, Environmental Impact Assessment
Practitioner, certify that I have read the written disclosure being filed and I
do not have any reason to believe that there are any misrepresentations in the
information derived from the Technical Report or that the written disclosure in
the Form 40F of Great Basin Gold Ltd. contains any misrepresentation of the
information contained in Technical Report on the Optimisation of the Feasibility
Study of the Burnstone Project, Mpulamalanga Province, Republic of South Africa
dated June 21, 2007.

I do hereby consent to the filing with the regulatory
authorities.

Dated this 31stday of March 2008.



|signed and
      sealed                                           
|------------------------------------------------------------------
|Joanna Goeller, Environmental Impact Assessment
      Practitioner

---
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

I, Sharon E. Tetlow, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Cell Genesys, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year
period ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Cell Genesys, Inc.

Dated: March 9, 2009



By:

/S/    SHARON E. TETLOWName: Sharon E. TetlowTitle: Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Keith E. ROBERTS and Oceanic Mercantile, Ltd., a Jamaican corporation, Appellants, v. MARINE ACQUISITIONS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-381.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 9, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Carl E. Jones, Jr., certify that: 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Regions Financial Corporation; 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) [Omitted in accordance with Commission Release No. 33-8238]~~~~
(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 13, 2003

/s/ Carl E. Jones, Jr.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                       NORTH COUNTRY FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                            CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES - OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, (the "Form 10-Q") of North
Country Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

      I, C. James Bess, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Issuer,
      certify that:

      (1)   The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
            or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

      (2)   The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Issuer.

/s/ C. James Bess
----------------------------------------
C. James Bess
President and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)

November 15, 2004
---------------
Date
Slip Op. 99- 64 United States Court of International Trade Before: James L. Watson, Senior Judge Bestfoods (formerly known as CPC : Court No. 95–02-00144 International, Inc.), : Plaintiff, : v. : United States, : Defendant. : Judgment This court's judgment for defendant entered pursuant to CPC Int'l. v. United States , 971 F. Supp. 574 (CIT 1997), having been cross-appealed by the parties, reversed favorably to defendant cross-appellant, vacated, and the action remanded to permit Bestfoods to pursue any further arguments it might have, Bestfoods (formerly known as CPC International v. United

States , 165 F. 3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1999) ( issued as a mandate on March 18, 1999); and This action, previously assigned to the Senior Judge Bernard Newman, having been reassigned to the undersigned on the 26 th day of May 1999, and No further arguments having been submitted by counsel for plaintiff to this court pursuant to the remand, and no further action having been taken by either party in this case; As the prior judgment for defendant, premised on the court's conclusion that marking would be required under the pre-NAFTA "substantial transformation" test was vacatedon appeal, it hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that this action be, and hereby, is dismissed. Dated: New York, New York July 15, 1999 James L. Watson, Senior Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7705 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7705

 To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 with respect to 
the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin Commissions, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 21, 2020

Ms. Houlahan (for herself and Mr. Fitzpatrick) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 with respect to 
the Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac River Basin Commissions, and for 
                            other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``River Basin Commission Transfer 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SUSQUEHANNA, DELAWARE, AND POTOMAC RIVER BASIN COMMISSIONS.

    Section 5019 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (121 
Stat. 1201; 128 Stat. 1307) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)(3), by inserting ``, who may be the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred 
        to in this section as the `Administrator') (or a designee),'' 
        after ``member''; and
            (2) in subsection (b)--
                    (A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Secretary'' 
                and inserting ``Subject to the availability of 
                appropriations, the Administrator'';
                    (B) in paragraph (2), by striking ``For each fiscal 
                year, the Secretary'' and inserting ``Subject to the 
                availability of appropriations, for each fiscal year, 
                the Administrator''; and
                    (C) in paragraph (3), by striking ``Secretary'' 
                each place it appears and inserting ``Administrator''.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2


     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Republic
Corporation of America (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2003
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Harry
Bergman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:


         (1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
              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.




By: /s/ Harry Bergman
    ------------------------
Name: Harry Bergman
Chief Financial and Chief Accounting Officer
May 25, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit 21

                 Catellus Development Corporation Subsidiaries

ANT II, LLC
ANT, LLC
Avalon Senior Housing, L.P.
BHC Residential, LLC
Bridgecourt Partners
Carlsbad Laurel Tree Apartments, LP
Catellus BHC, LLC
Catellus Commercial 1, LLC
Catellus Commercial Development Corporation
 (formerly Catellus Management Corporation)
Catellus Commercial Group, LLC
Catellus Construction Corporation
 (formerly Mission Bay Homes Corporation)
Catellus Fiber Optics, LLC
Catellus Finance 1, L.L.C.
Catellus Fort Worth, L.P.
Catellus Gateway East Business Park, LLC
Catellus Internationale Centre South, LLC
Catellus Management Corporation of Canada, Ltd.
Catellus Plano Business Center, LLC
Catellus Prairie Glen, Inc.
Catellus Residential Communities, Inc.
Catellus Residential Construction, Inc.
Catellus Residential Group, Inc.
Catellus Residential Homes Corp. I
Catellus Residential Land, LLC
Catellus Residential Marbella, Inc.
Catellus Residential Ocean Ridge, Inc.
Catellus Residential Ridgemoor Homes, Inc.
Catellus Residential Ridgemoor, Inc.
Catellus RVL, Inc. (formerly RVL, Inc.)
Catellus Southshore, LLC
Catellus Stapleton Business Center, LLC
Catellus Third and King, L.L.C.
Catellus Technologies Group (Fremont), LLC
Catellus Union Station, Inc.
Catellus Urban Construction, Inc. (Mixed Use Construction, Inc.; formerly
  Westada Corporation)
Catellus Urban Development, LLC*
Catellus Urban Development Corporation (formerly Gilman Property Corporation)
Catellus Urban Development Group, LLC (formerly Catellus Mixed Use Group, LLC)
Catellus Westminster Company, LLC
Catellus Westminster II, LLC
Cato REIT, Co. (formerly Seabridge Properties, Inc.)
CCG Ontario, LLC
CDC Fort Worth, LLC
Collinsville Property Corporation
CRG/CDI Oxnard LLC
CRG Constructors L.P.
Cuatro Catellus, LP
East Baybridge Partners, LP
Folsom Parkway LLC
GGF Holdings, LLC
GGF Property, LLC
Golden Empire Investment Corporation
Harbor Drive Company
Hercules, LLC
Hercules Victoria, LLC
International Rivercenter
Mission Bay Commercial Maintenance Corporation
Mission Bay Transportation Management Association
Mission Bay N2 Parcel 1, LLC
 (formerly Catellus Mission Bay 1, LLC)
Mission Bay N3a Parcel 2, LLC
Mission Bay S26(a), LLC
Mission Bay S26a/S28, LLC
New Orleans International Hotel
New Orleans Rivercenter
New Shrine Holdings, LLC
Otterr Phins, Inc.
Pacific Commons Owners Association
Pacific Design Center
Pacific Market Investment Company
Parkway Company, LLC
Plato REIT, LLC
Santa Fe Bayfront Venture
Santa Fe Place Owners Association
Santa Fe Towers Land Company
Sequoia Pacific Realco, L.P.
Serrano Associates LLC
Serrano Constructors, LP
SF Pacific Properties Inc.
SPNS Golden Gate, LLC (formerly Riding-Catellus Golden Gate, LLC)
Talega Associates, LLC
Talega Village LLC
The South Portal Company
Third and King Investors, LLC
Thunderdome Co.
Torrance Investment Company
Traer Creek LLC
Union Station Partners
Union Station Venture One Corporation
Vista Range, LLC

--------
*  Inactive