alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549


                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
                         Securities Exchange Act of 1934

        Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): October 4, 2000

                          BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY
               (EXACT NAME OF REGISTRANT AS SPECIFIED IN CHARTER)


              Nevada                        1-9666               76-0151431
   (STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION    (COMMISSION FILE NUMBER)    (IRS EMPLOYER
         OF INCORPORATION)                                   IDENTIFICATION NO.)

    333 Clay Street, 42nd Floor
          Houston, Texas                                            77002

 (ADDRESS, OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE                                 (ZIP CODE)
             OFFICES)

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

       Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (713) 650-6400

                                 Not applicable

          (FORMER NAME OR FORMER ADDRESS, IF CHANGED SINCE LAST REPORT)


<PAGE>

ITEM 5.  OTHER EVENTS.

         5.1 Attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated by reference
herein is certain information regarding successful development drilling at
Battle Mountain Gold Company's Phoenix, Nevada project and the Company's
Australian Pajingo Complex where it has a 50% interest, as presented in a press
release dated October 4, 2000.

ITEM 7.  FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, PRO FORMA FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND EXHIBITS.

         c)       Exhibits.

                  99.1  Press Release issued by Battle Mountain Gold Company
                        dated October 4, 2000.

                                   SIGNATURES

         Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Date:  October 4, 2000.                 BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY
                                        (Registrant)



                                        By:     /s/ Greg V. Etter
                                              ---------------------------------
                                        Name:   Greg V. Etter
                                        Title:  Vice President, General Counsel
                                                and Corporate Secretary
#### In the Matter of Kenneth Carchietta, Appellant, v Department of Personnel of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered February 1, 1990, which denied and dismissed the CPLR article 78 petition challenging the Civil Service Commission’s determination upholding the Department of Personnel’s disqualification of petitioner from the position of police officer on the grounds of character, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After having successfully competed in Civil Service Examination No. 1175 for appointment to a position as a police *305officer, petitioner’s name was removed from the eligible list upon the Department of Personnel’s investigative findings and determination that petitioner was "not qualified” on the basis of "character”. Since the petitioner commenced his article 78 proceeding after the expiration of the eligible list and did not challenge the validity of the list in his petition, the relief requested therein could not be granted and dismissal of the petition for these reasons was warranted. *(See, Matter of Deas v Levitt,*73 NY2d 525, *cert denied*493 US 933.)

In any event, the petition, which challenges as arbitrary and capricious respondent’s determination disqualifying petitioner on the basis of "character”, is without merit. Petitioner has failed to present evidentiary facts from which an inference of bad faith, illegality or arbitrary and capricious conduct can be drawn *(Matter of Stanziale v Executive Dept., Off. of Gen. Servs., 55*NY2d 735). Indeed, the record supports the Civil Service Commission’s exercise of its broad discretion *(see generally, Matter of Metzger v Nassau County Civ. Serv. Commn.,*54 AD2d 565). The investigation revealed that petitioner, as a youth, had once been arrested for his participation in the transfer of a forged prescription for illicit drugs and that the explanation of his involvement in the incident was questionable. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Asch and Kassal, JJ.
----

Action brought on 20 January 2005 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-16/05)

(2005/C 82/62)

Language of the case: Danish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 20 January 2005 by Viasat Broadcasting UK Ltd, West Drayton (United Kingdom), represented by Simon Evers Hjelmborg, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The contested decision relates to a recapitalisation plan for the State-owned public service television broadcasting company TV 2/DANMARK A/S. The recapitalisation, which comprises a capital injection by the Danish State and conversion of debt into equity, was deemed to be necessary as a result of the Commission's decision of 19 May 2004 (1) whereby the Commission required Denmark to recover unlawfully granted State aid from TV 2/DANMARK A/S, which would, however, have resulted in technical bankruptcy of the company.

According to the contested decision, the Commission was unable to discount the possibility that the recapitalisation of TV 2 under consideration might contain elements of State aid under Article 87(1) EC. In point 55 of the contested decision, however, the Commission found that any element of State aid that might be linked to the planned recapitalisation of TV 2 would be compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC.

In support of the form of order which it seeks, the applicant submits that the Commission erred in law in not holding that the recapitalisation plan was incompatible with Article 87(1) EC. That submission is based inter alia on the following grounds:

The applicant further submits that the Commission erred in law in finding that any element of State aid which might be linked to recapitalisation would be compatible with the common market under Article 86(2) EC. In support of its plea in law, the applicant submits inter alia as follows:

The applicant also submits that the Commission was limited to appraising the planned recapitalisation under Article 87(2) EC and 87(3) EC, in particular Article 87(3)(c) EC, and the Community guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty, (2) and that the planned recapitalisation does not meet the conditions for exemption under those provisions.

----

(1)  Commission Decision C(2004)1814 final of 19 May 2004 in Case C 2/2003 (ex NN 22/2002) on Danish measures benefiting TV 2/DANMARK.

(2)  Communication from the Commission, OJ C 244 of 1 October 2004, p. 2.

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>




<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Spectrum Global Balanced L.P. and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      43,020,361
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,330,238<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,317,786<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                46,317,786<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,042,090<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,464,202
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,577,888
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,577,888
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,577,888
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include subscriptions receivable of $1,163,097 and
interest receivable of $167,141.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net
unrealized gain on open contracts of $1,967,187.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $118,190, accrued
brokerage fees of $169,841, management fee of $46,153 and
incentive fees payable of $69,730.
<F4>Total revenue includes realized trading revenue of $5,113,920,
net change in unrealized of $1,285,628 and interest income of
$1,642,542.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### James Myers et al., Respondents, v L & M Developers et al., Defendants, and Oneida Savings Bank, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against defendant Oneida Savings Bank. Memorandum: The complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendant Oneida Savings Bank. The Bank had no duty to plaintiffs to assure that a certificate of occupancy was properly issued. The provision in the mortgage commitment requiring receipt of a certificate of occupancy before closing was for the protection of the mortgagor bank and not for the benefit of plaintiffs. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J.—Abandonment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Boomer, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

GREGORY ALLEN WILLIAMS, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-1715

LT Case No. 1992-CF-000777

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed December 6, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for St. Johns County, 

R. Lee Smith, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Allison A. Havens, Assistant 

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellant. 

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Stephen R. 

Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General, Daytona Beach, for 

Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., EVANDER and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-1663

In Re: VALARIE PRICE,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(2:03-cv-00568-RBS)

Submitted: December 13, 2006 Decided: May 4, 2007

Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Valarie Price, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Valarie Price petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking:

a stay of a show cause hearing in the district court; discovery,

transfer of venue, and an “on briefs” resolution of the show cause

matter; and a stay of a related appeal pending resolution of the

show cause proceeding. The district court conducted a show cause

hearing on August 1, 2006, and has entered judgment in that matter.

Accordingly, the request for relief is moot, and we deny the

petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
(The Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Period Ending December 31,
1999)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                                 0000924921
<NAME>                                                WALTER USINOWICZ

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                          DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                      1,447
<SECURITIES>                                                2,540
<RECEIVABLES>                                               1,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  318
<INVENTORY>                                                 2,036
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            8,358
<PP&E>                                                      3,940
<DEPRECIATION>                                              1,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             23,588
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       2,348
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                12,457
<COMMON>                                                       15
<OTHER-SE>                                                  7,957
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               23,588
<SALES>                                                     5,432
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            5,902
<CGS>                                                       3,606
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               3,606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (11,199)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                4,140
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (15,339)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (18,256)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (1.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (1.64)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with the quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Evolution Acquisition Corporation (the "Company") for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Rozelle, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:





1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 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.








Date: November 23, 2010





/s/ Joseph RozelleJoseph Rozelle

President

(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)











The foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 3908

To establish the Office of Personal Savings Promotion within the Department

of the Treasury.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 24, 1994

Mr. LAROCCO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To establish the Office of Personal Savings Promotion within

the Department of the Treasury.

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 ‘‘Office of Personal Sav5 ings Promotion Act of 1994’’.

6 SEC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT OF OFFICE.

7 Section 301 of title 31, United States Code, is

8 amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 section:

10 ‘‘(h) OFFICE OF PERSONAL SAVINGS PROMOTION.—
2

•HR 3908 IH

1 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established

2 the Office of Personal Savings Promotion (hereafter

3 in this subsection referred to as the ‘‘Office’’) in the

4 Department of the Treasury.

5 ‘‘(2) DIRECTOR.—

6 ‘‘(A) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Office shall

7 have a Director who shall be the head of the

8 Office.

9 ‘‘(B) APPOINTMENT.—The Director shall

10 be appointed by the Secretary of the Treasury

11 and shall be subject to the direction of an As12 sistant Secretary designated by the Secretary.

13 ‘‘(3) DUTIES.—In addition to such other duties

14 as the Secretary of the Treasury may impose, the

15 Director shall develop policies and recommendations

16 for administrative and legislative action to increase

17 the rate of domestic personal savings.’’.

Æ
Exhibit 32.4

ARC PROPERTIES OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ARC Properties Operating Partnership, L.P. (the Company) for the
fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2014 (the Report), I, Michael Sodo, Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, 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: March 2, 2015 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael Sodo                                               
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Michael Sodo                                                   
|                    |  |  |  |     |  | Executive Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and
will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
| 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. |

|            | Yellow7, Inc. |                    |
|-----------------|---------------|-------------------------|
|            | (Registrant)  |                    |
|            |          |                    |   |
| August 15, 2011 | By:           | /s/ Jon Burgess         |   |
|            |          | Jon Burgess             |   |
|            |          | Chief Financial Officer |   |
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Denali Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov","author_name":"denaliadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/author\/denaliadmin\/","title":"Scammon Bay Bulk Fuel Upgrades Environmental Assessment","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"f0hE7pKWZa\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/scammon-bay-bulk-fuel-upgrades-environmental-assessment\/\">Scammon Bay Bulk Fuel Upgrades Environmental Assessment<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/scammon-bay-bulk-fuel-upgrades-environmental-assessment\/embed\/#?secret=f0hE7pKWZa\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Scammon Bay Bulk Fuel Upgrades Environmental Assessment” — Denali Commission\" data-secret=\"f0hE7pKWZa\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.denali.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/02\/logo-1.png","thumbnail_width":189,"thumbnail_height":188}
#### Marion MODOONO and Fred Modoono, husband and wife, Appellants, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, Florida, Metropolitan Dade County Transit Authority, and Mr. F. Cirstobal, jointly and severally, Appellees.

No. 67-370.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 17, 1967.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.