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





Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.





The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of AmeriSteel Corporation (the Company), each hereby certifies that on the date hereof:





| | (a) |  | the 10Q of the Company for the Six Months Ended June 30, 2002, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1924; and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




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




/s/    PHILLIP E. CASEYPhillip E. Casey Chief Executive Officer August 9, 2002





/s/    TOM J. LANDATom J. Landa Chief Financial Officer August 9, 2002




19
GAIL LEE

,
Appellant,

v.

REEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE APPEALS COMMISSION and ROLFE & LOBELLO PA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THERE OF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 4100

_____________________________/

Opinion filed April 9, 2015.

An appeal from an order of the Reemployment Assistance Appeals Commission

.
Gail C. Lee, pro se, Appellant.

Norman A. Blessing, General Counsel, and Cristina A ngelica Velez, Appellate Counsel

, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS and WETHERELL, JJ., and SOUD, ADRIAN G., ASSOCIATE JUDGE, CONCUR.
#### CITY OF NAPLES, Petitioner, v. Thomas Wherrett MILLER, Joseph Wherrett Miller and Douglas B. Danser and Alice Danser, Respondents.

No. 41014.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 10, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 243 So.2d 608.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Ida BLUMBERG and Hyman Blumberg, Appellants, v. ST. FRANCIS HOSPITAL, INC., Appellee.

No. 71-379.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 7, 1971.

Alvin N. Weinstein, Miami, for appellants.

Taylor, Brion, Buker, Hames, Greene & Whitworth, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The final judgment of dismissal in this cause be and the same is hereby reversed upon the authority in Milu, Inc. v. Duke, Fla.App.1971, 256 So.2d 83 (opinion filed this date), with directions to the trial court to reinstate the plaintiffs’ amended complaint and cause of action.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
#### Mildred M. ROGERS, Appellant, v. Edgar D. ROGERS, Appellee.

No. 70-519.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 3, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
1 The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United St ates District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3455

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of Minnesota. Abel Sanchez-Rocha, also known as * Felice Rodriguez, Jr., also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Feliciano Rodriguez, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 27, 2006 Filed: December 7, 2006

___________ Before MURPHY, BYE, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Abel Sanchez-Rocha appeals th e sentence the district court 1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a methamphetamine mixture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. Rocha cont ends the court erre d in finding he was ineligible for safety-valve relief.-2- To receive the safety-valve reduction, Rocha had “to show, through affirmative conduct, that he gave the Government truthful information and evidence about the relevant crimes before sentencing.” See United States v. Romo , 81 F.3d 84, 85-86 (8th Cir. 1996). We review for clear error the district court’s finding that Rocha did not satisfy his burden. See United States v. Weekly , 118 F.3d 576, 581 (8th Cir.), modified on other grounds , 128 F.3d 1198 (8th Cir. 1997).
Upon careful review of the record before us on appeal, we cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding that Rocha gave inconsistent answers about his drug sources and avoided some of the government’s proffer-interview questions. Rocha complains that the court considered only the letters from the prosecutor and the arguments at the sentencing h earing, but the district court also had before it a letter from defense counsel after the first proffe r about Rocha’s refreshed recollection, as well as Rocha’s sentencing testimony during which he was unable to remember details about one of his proffer intervie ws, was evasive, and disclaimed knowledge about the cost of the methamphetamine he had bought and about the contact information for his drug source or sources. See Romo , 81 F.3d at 85 (defendant was required to disclose all info rmation he possessed about hi s involvement in crime and his chain of distribution, including identities and participation of others).
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
----

----

|   | (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/ Andrew S. Prince                                           |                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|   |   |                                                           |                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|   |   |      Andrew S. Prince                      |                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|   |   |      President and Chief Executive Officer |                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|   |   |                                                           |                                                                                                                                                 |   |

----
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION Ill 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

Honorable David S. Small, Secretary 

Delaware Department ofNatural Resources 

and Environmental Control 

89 Kings Highway 

Dover, Delaware 19901 

Dear Secretary Small: 

JUN 3D ZD15 

On May 1, 2015, EPA received a revision to the Delaware State Implementation Plan (SIP) from 

the Delaware Department ofNatural Resources and Environmental Control (DE DNREC). That 

revision, dated April23, 2015, is entitled "Delaware 2011 Base Yeas State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

Emissions Inventory under the 2008 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)." EPA 

has determined that the submittal is administratively and technically complete, and is reviewing it to 

prepare a Direct Final Rulemaking Notice (DFRN) action. 

If members of your staff have any questions, they may direct them to Maria A. Pino, Office of 

Air Program Planning, at (215) 814-2181, or at pino.maria@epa.gov. She is the principal contact for 

this rulemaking. 

Sincerely 

J)\M'()_~ 

Diana Esher, Director 

Air Protection Division 

0 Printed on 100% recycled/recyclable paper witlr 100% post-consumer fiber and process chlorine free. 

Customer Service Hotline: 1-800-438-2474
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 816

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to clarify the exemption

from the firearms tax for shells and cartridges supplied by a customer

for reloading.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 4, 1993

Mr. BARRETT of Nebraska (for himself and Mr. THOMAS of California) 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 clarify

the exemption from the firearms tax for shells and cartridges supplied by a customer for reloading.

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

3 SECTION 1. CLARIFICATION OF EXEMPTION FROM FIRE4 ARMS TAX FOR RELOADING OF SHELLS AND

5 CARTRIDGES SUPPLIED BY CUSTOMER.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4182 of the Internal Rev7 enue Code of 1986 (relating to exemptions from firearms

8 tax) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following

9 new subsection:
2

HR 816 IH

1 ‘‘(d) RELOADING OF CUSTOMER-SUPPLIED SHELLS

2 AND CARTRIDGES.—No tax shall be imposed by section

3 4181 on the reloading of previously used shells and car4 tridges supplied by a customer if the reloaded shells and

5 cartridges returned to the customer—

6 ‘‘(1) are previously used shells and cartridges

7 supplied by such customer or any other customer,

8 and

9 ‘‘(2) are identical in type and quantity to the

10 shells and cartridges supplied by such customer.’’

11 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by

12 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date of the enact13 ment of this Act.

Æ
#### Elsasser *v.*Schoen, Appellant.

Argued May 8, 1934.

Before Tbexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*422
      *Anne X. Alpern,*and with her *Daryle R. Heckman*and *Clarence L. Shaver,*for appellant.

No appearance and no paper hook for appellee.

July 13, 1934:

Per Curiam,

A collision between two automobiles on the Lincoln Highway, at Sliding Rock Hill, resulted in two actions of trespass in the court of common pleas of Somerset County. Max Schoen and Rose Schoen brought suit against N. A. Elsasser to September Term, 1931, No. 566; Huida Nathan Elsasser brought suit against Max Schoen to February Term, 1932, No. 3. The cases were tried together, and resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant in the first mentioned suit, and for the plaintiff in the second. From the judgments entered on the verdicts appeals were taken respectively to the Supreme Court and this court. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment in favor of the defendant, N. A. Elsasser, 315 Pa. 65, 172 A. 301, because of the refusal of the court below to admit certain evidence which the appellants, the plaintiffs in that action, had offered by way of rebuttal. The Supreme Court held that the excluded evidence was relevant and material and should have been received. The ruling of the Supreme Court requires the reversal of the judgment in this appeal. If the evidence was admissible by way of rebuttal in the action of Schoen v. Elsasser, it was admissible by way of defense in the action of Elsasser v. Schoen.

For the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court above mentioned, the first, second and third assignments of error are sustained, the judgment is reversed and a new trial awarded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN THE COMPANY'S 
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> CHINESE RENMINBI
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 .12048
<CASH>                                           2,102
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   79,638
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     66,722
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               184,762
<PP&E>                                         166,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 375,838
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          195,957
<BONDS>                                          8,255
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                     122,439
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   375,838
<SALES>                                         96,613
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                96,613
<CGS>                                           76,326
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,326
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                29,070
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,260
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (29,463)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,463)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (5.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (5.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### Patricia RUSSELL, Appellant, v. Clifford RUSSELL, Appellee.

No. 72-988.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 31, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.3








November 20, 2013Analyst Contact:T.D. Eureste918-588-7167Media Contact:Brad Borror918-588-7582





ONEOK and ONEOK Partners to Participate in


Bank of America Merrill Lynch Energy Conference





TULSA, Okla. – Nov. 20, 2013 -- ONEOK, Inc. (NYSE: OKE) and ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS) will participate in the Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Energy Conference on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013, and Friday, Nov. 22, 2013, in Miami, Florida.





John W. Gibson, chairman and chief executive officer of ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, will present at the conference on Thursday, Nov. 21, 2013, at 2:05 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (1:05 p.m. Central Standard Time).





The conference will be webcast and will be accessible on the ONEOK and ONEOK Partners websites, www.oneok.com and www.oneokpartners.com . A replay of the webcast will be archived for 30 days.





The presentation will be posted on the ONEOK and ONEOK Partners websites on Nov. 21, at 8 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (7 a.m. Central Standard Time).











ONEOK, Inc. (pronounced ONE-OAK) (NYSE: OKE) is a diversified energy company.  We are the general partner and as of Sept. 30, 2013, own 41.3 percent of ONEOK Partners, L.P. (NYSE: OKS), one of the largest publicly traded master limited partnerships, which is a leader in the gathering, processing, storage and transportation of natural gas in the U.S. and owns one of the nation’s premier natural gas liquids (NGL) systems, connecting NGL supply in the Mid-Continent and Rocky Mountain regions with key market centers.  ONEOK is among the largest natural gas distributors in the United States, serving more than 2 million customers in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas.  ONEOK is a FORTUNE 500 company and is included in Standard & Poor’s (S&P) 500 Stock Index.





For more information, visit the websites at www.oneok.com or www.oneokpartners.com .





For the latest news about ONEOK and ONEOK Partners, follow us on Twitter @ONEOKNews and @ONEOKPartners .








###
EXHIBIT 11.1

Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings

Computation of Earnings Per
Share

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share, Consolidated Statements of Income for the three and six months ended
June 30, 2006 and 2005, included in this report as Exhibit 13.3.

Earnings Per Share

Net Income / Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period



|                                    |  |                             |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | --------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Three months ended June 30,
|                                    |  | 2006                        |           | 2005
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                             | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                           | 549,433   |      | $ | 510,783  
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                           | 0.36      |      | $ | 0.33     



|                                    |  |                           |           |      |   |          
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------- | --------- | ---- | - | ---------
|                                    |  | Six months ended June 30,
|                                    |  | 2006                      |           | 2005
|Weighted Average Shares Outstanding |  |                           | 1,528,443 |      |   | 1,528,443
|Net Income                          |  | $                         | 1,149,476 |      | $ | 1,056,512
|Per Share Amount                    |  | $                         | 0.75      |      | $ | 0.69     

No common stock equivalents exist.
----

UNITED STATESSECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSIONWashington D.C. 20549FORM 10-QQUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OFTHE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2002

Commission File Number 0-2604**GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION**(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)**36-0887470**(I.R.S. employer identification No.)**Delaware(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)**One GBC Plaza,Northbrook, Illinois  60062**(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)**(847) 272-3700**(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

Yes    X   ****No ____

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the close of the latest practicable date.
 **Outstanding at**Class**May 7, 2002
Common Stock, $0.125 par value
13,445,792
Class B Common Stock, $0.125 par value
       2,398,275** **********
<PAGE>   1
                                                                  Exhibit 10(ll)
                                                                       conformed

                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO INVESTMENT AGREEMENT

      Reference is hereby made to the Investment Agreement, dated as of February
23, 1998, as amended on May 13, 1998 (the "Agreement"), between TPG Oxford LLC
(the "Investor") and Oxford Health Plans, Inc. (the "Company"). Capitalized
terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms
in the Agreement.

      The Investor and Company, pursuant to and in accordance with Section 11.07
of the Agreement, hereby agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

      1. Section 7.07 of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the words
"Prior to" at the beginning of the first sentence thereof with the words "As
soon as reasonably practicable after".

      2. Section 8.13(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended by replacing the
words "May 13, 1998" with the words "July 31, 1998".

      This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts and by the
different parties hereto on separate counterparts, each of which when so
executed and delivered shall be an original, but all of which together
constitutes one and the same instrument.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of May
13, 1998.

                                                TPG OXFORD LLC


                                                By: /s/ Karl Peterson
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Name: Karl Petersen
                                                   Title: Member


                                          OXFORD HEALTH PLANS, INC.

                                          By: /s/ Jeffery H. Boyd
                                             ----------------------------
                                             Name: Jeffery H. Boyd
                                             Title: Executive Vice President
                                             and General Counsel
EXHIBIT 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS






As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements (Commission File numbers 333-62573,
333-95912, 333-18613, 333-62464, 333-70773 and 333-46721) on Forms S-8, S-2 and
S-3 of Viseon, Inc. (fka: RSI Systems, Inc.) of our report dated October 4,
2002, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Viseon, Inc. as of June 30,
2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows for the years then ended, which report
appears in the June 30, 2002 annual report on Form 10-KSB of Viseon, Inc.



                                              /s/ VIRCHOW, KRAUSE & COMPANY, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
October 15, 2002
GHASSEMI, PHOEL & COMPANY
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
23 Langdon Place
Lynbrook, NY 11563
Phone:  516-887-4444
Fax:   516-887-4450






Board of Directors and Shareholders
Datatab, Inc.

The examination referred to in our opinion dated March 17, 1998 of the financial
statements  as of  December  31, 1997 and for each of the three years then ended
included the related supplemental  financial schedules as listed in Item 11(a)2,
which, when considered in relation to the basic financial  statements,  presents
fairly in all material respects the information shown therein.









/S/ GHASSEMI, PHOEL & CO.
-------------------------
Certified Public Accountants


Lynbrook, New York
March 17, 1998






                                     IV - 4