alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| (1) | The      report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Dated:  May      11, 2009 | By:    | /s/      Xiong      Junhong                                 |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                |   |        Xiong      Junhong                                                                                                                                                                |
|                                |   |        Chief      Executive Officer                                                                                                                                                      |

----
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Administration on Aging

# AGENCY:

Administration on Aging, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice

# SUMMARY:

The Administration on Aging (AoA) is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed below has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# DATES:

Submit written or electronic comments on the collection of information by April 5, 2012.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Submit electronic comments on the collection of information to:                         *Cynthia.LaCounte@aoa.hhs.gov*. Submit written comments on the collection of information to Cynthia LaCounte, Administration on Aging, Washington, DC 20201 or by fax at 202-357-3560.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Margaret Graves at (202) 357-0148 or                         *Cynthia.LaCounte@aoa.hhs.gov*.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

In compliance with 44 U.S.C 3507, AoA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

## Describe Collection of Information

AoA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows: Annual submission of the Program Performance Reports are due 90 days after the end of the budget period and final project period. 

*Respondents:*                     Federally Recognized Tribes, Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organizations receiving grants under Title VI, Part A, Grants for Native Americans; Title VI, Part B, Native Hawaiian Program and Title VI, Part C, Native American Caregiver Support Program.                 

*Estimated Number of Responses:*                     256.                 

*Total Estimated Burden Hours:*                     640.                

Dated: February 28, 2012.

Kathy Greenlee,

Assistant Secretary for Aging.

[FR Doc. 2012-5437 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4154-01-P
| 1. | Such      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending November 30,      2008, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for      the period ending November 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      Red Rock Pictures Holdings, Inc. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      January 20, 2009                      |
|--------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |
| /s/ Reno Rolle                                   |
| Reno      RollePresident,      CEO, and Director |
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-6770
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus CLAUDIO CAMPANELLA, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, District Judge. (CR-92-444-A, CA-95-325-AM) Submitted: December 14, 1995 Decided: January 4, 1996 Before ERVIN, Chief Judge, and WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claudio Campanella, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Campanella Nos. CR-92-444-A; CA-95-325-AM (E.D. Va. Apr. 26, 1995).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.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1845 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1845

           To extend the suspension of duty on Avermectin B.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 22, 2009

 Mr. Nelson of Nebraska introduced the following bill; which was read 
             twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
           To extend the suspension of duty on Avermectin B.

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

SECTION 1. AVERMECTIN B.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.56 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Avermectin B) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit
      32.9




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 of Frezer, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the
      capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:





1. 
      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and





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




Dated:
      September 14, 2006




By:
            /s/
              David KoosDavid
              KoosChief
              Executive Officer




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise
      adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
      of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Frezer,
      Inc. and will be retained by Frezer, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF the STATE OF COLORADO (Ex-officio Unemployment Compensation Commission), Petitioner, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER, Respondents, and Mary P. Ross, Interested Party.

No. 85 SC 184.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

Feb. 27, 1987.

Geoffrey S. Wasson, Denver, Gregory K. Chamber, Asst. City Attys., Denver, for respondents.’

ORDER OF COURT

Prior report: Colo.App., 707 P.2d 1008.

Upon review of the record and briefs filed herein, and having heard the oral arguments of counsel,

IT IS THIS DAY Ordered that the Writ of Certiorari in the above captioned cases shall be, and the same hereby is, DENIED as having been improvidently granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this cause be and is remanded to the Court of Appeals.
EXHIBIT 12

                          MINN DAK FARMERS COOPERATIVE
              COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF NET PROCEEDS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                 (IN THOUSANDS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Year Ended August 31,
                                                                         ---------------------

                                                               2001     2000     1999     1998     1997
<S>                                                           <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Earnings:
Net proceeds before income taxes from continuing operations   94,620   86,604   63,352   72,084   74,239
Fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest, see below       4,920    5,199    5,264    5,372    4,316
Amortization of capitalized interest                              94       94       94       92       55
                                                              ------   ------   ------   ------   ------

     Net Proceeds                                             99,634   91,897   68,710   77,548   78,610
                                                              ======   ======   ======   ======   ======


Fixed Charges:
Interest Expense                                               4,920    5,199    5,264    5,372    4,316
Interest factor included in rentals (1)                            0        0        0        0        0
                                                              ------   ------   ------   ------   ------

Fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest                  4,920    5,199    5,264    5,372    4,316
     Interest capitalized                                          0        0        0      199      954
                                                              ------   ------   ------   ------   ------
Fixed Charges                                                  4,920    5,199    5,264    5,571    5,270
                                                              ======   ======   ======   ======   ======

Ratio of net proceeds to fixed charges                         20.25    17.68    13.05    13.92    14.92
                                                              ======   ======   ======   ======   ======
</TABLE>

(1)      The company does lease certain items, such as office equipment. Due to
         the proportionately small amounts involved, interest on such lease
         payments has not been included in the total of the company's fixed
         charges of the calculation of this ratio.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 20, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-40952 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CRUZ EMMA MARES-CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:04-CR-695-2

-------------------- Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Cruz Emma Mares-Chavez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Mares-Chavez has not responded to counsel’s motion. Our independent review of the brief filed by counsel and of the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MIDWEST EXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC. AS OF AND
FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          25,541
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,720
<ALLOWANCES>                                       265
<INVENTORY>                                      3,002
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,143
<PP&E>                                         135,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  62,546
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 136,226
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           61,211
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                      44,540
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   136,226
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   73,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    59
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,538
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,231
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,231
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.45
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

March 29, 2002

 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20549

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

 

Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen) has auditedour financial statements for 2001. Andersen has represented to us that:

 

*              theaudit was subject to Andersen’s quality control system for the U.S. accountingand auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement wasconducted in compliance with professional standards,

 

*              therewas appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, and

 

*              therewas availability of national office consultation to conduct the relevantportions of the audit.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

AMERICAN RESTAURANT GROUP, INC.

 

 

 
| /s/ Patrick J. Kelvie                 |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Patrick J. Kelvie                     |
| Vice President, Treasurer,  Secretary |
| and General Counsel                   |

 

 

----
#### Rockland Development Associates, Respondent, v Richlou Auto Body, Inc., Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for nonpayment of rent, the defendant appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), dated October 24, 1989, as granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff* is the owner of a two-building premises located in West Nyack, New York. On December 23, 1986, the plaintiff* leased to the defendant 3,600 square feet in one of its buildings to be used as an auto-body repair shop. The lease provided as follows: "Tenant agrees not to compete with the services to be offered by other tenants within the two-building complex, to include transmission repairs, muffler installation, tire sales, rust-proofing, fast oil change and lubrication, general engine repairs, tune-up services and related work”.

Sometime after the lease between the plaintiff* and the defendant was executed, the plaintiff* leased space in the same two buildings to another auto-body repair shop, the effect of which was to drive the defendant out of business. The defendant ceased paying rent to the plaintiff* and vacated the demised premises. This action was commenced shortly thereafter.

The defendant counterclaimed, averring that the plaintiff had violated the noncompetition clause and frustrated the purpose of the lease between the parties by entering into a *691subsequent lease with another auto-body repair shop. The plaintiff then moved for summary judgment dismissing the defendant’s counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff’s motion. We affirm.

The language of the lease is unmistakably clear. It is the defendant, not the plaintiff, who agreed "not to compete with the services to be offered by the other tenants within the two-building complex”. Yet, the defendant seeks to impose a reciprocal obligation on the plaintiff to refrain from leasing any other part of his property to another tenant engaged in the same business. The language of the lease, however, is not reasonably capable of such a construction, and restrictive covenants will not be extended by implication *(see,*74 NY Jur 2d, Landlord and Tenant, § 89).

The doctrine of frustration of purpose does not apply unless the frustration is substantial. It is not enough that the transaction has become less profitable for the affected party or even that he will sustain a loss *(see,*Restatement [Second] of Contracts § 265, comment a). The defendant merely alleges that he has sustained a loss. Thus, the doctrine of frustration of purpose is inapplicable.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Eiber, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Beatty, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered July 7, 1989, convicting defendant after a jury trial of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing *404him to concurrent terms of 10 to 20 years, *l-Vi*to 15 years, and *I-V2*to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The victim was in the company of her friend, who sold marijuana to defendant. When defendant returned shortly after the sale demanding his money be returned, ah argument ensued during which defendant drew a gun and shot at the victim’s friend. Defendant missed, but a bullet fragment caught the victim in the eye. The victim, who had seen defendant previously but did not know his name, and her friend, both identified the defendant in court.

The victim’s boyfriend testified on defendant’s behalf. He claimed that while he was incarcerated, he corresponded with the victim, indicating that a certain "T.J.” rather than defendant, was the actual perpetrator. In rebuttal, the victim testified that during this correspondence, the boyfriend admitted that he had befriended the defendant, and urged her to drop charges insofar as defendant had not intended to shoot her.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People, defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was free to credit the People’s witnesses, and reject the testimony of defendant’s witness. We find no basis to disturb those findings. Nor do we find that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490.)

Defendant failed to preserve any challenge to introduction of the rebuttal evidence by appropriate objection *(People v Rivera,*73 NY2d 941). In any event, this evidence was properly admitted on rebuttal, as it was relevant to overcome an affirmative fact which defendant tried to prove *(People v Alvino,*71 NY2d 233, 248), to wit, whether defendant or another person, who was unknown to the victim, was the actual perpetrator. The court gave appropriate limiting instructions.

Defendant’s challenges to the prosecutor’s comments in summation are for the most part unpreserved; to the extent they are preserved, they are without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.