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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         109,673
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,520,627
<ALLOWANCES>                                    29,839
<INVENTORY>                                    384,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,595,157
<PP&E>                                       7,405,265
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,941,245
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,850,637
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,235,173
<BONDS>                                      1,968,609
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,923,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,850,637
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,942,608
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,752,741
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                39,827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             181,884
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  4,562
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,909
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,347)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (14,300)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (4,762)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (29,409)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Commonwealth *v.*Harvie, Appellant.

Argued May 7, 1942.

*608May 8, 1942:

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Rhodes, Hirt and KenworTi-iey, JJ.

*David Roth,*with him *William H. Coleman,*for appellant.

*Louis L. Kaufman,*with him *Russell H. Adams,*District Attorney, for appellee.

Per Curiam,

The six judges who heard the argument in this case being equally divided in opinion, the judgment is affirmed. (See note to *Cherry v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance*Company, 133 Pa. Superior Ct. 180, 2 A. 2d 515).
##### 





Exhibit 10.19
























---



##### 















| |                                            |                          |  | 
| | ------------------------------------------ | ------------------------ |  | 
| | Very truly yours,
MORGAN JOSEPH & CO. INC. |                         
| | By:                                        | /s/ Roger T. Briggs, Jr. | 
| |                                            | Roger T. Briggs, Jr.     | 
| |                                            | Vice Chairman            | 
|

| |                                                      |                                      |  | 
| | ---------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |  | 
| | CONFIRMED AND AGREED:
COCONUT PALM ACQUISITION CORP. |                                     
| | By:                                                  | /s/ Richard C. Rochon                | 
| |                                                      | Richard C. Rochon                    | 
| |                                                      | Chairman and 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.                  

###### International Trade Commission

          - [Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Third Review)]

## Determination

                    On the basis of the record [1]                                          developed in the subject five-year review, the United States International Trade Commission (Commission) determines, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)), that termination of the suspended investigation on uranium from Russia would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.[2] 

## Background

The Commission instituted this review on July 1, 2011 (76 FR 38694) and determined on October 4, 2011 that it would conduct an expedited review (76 FR 64107, October 17, 2011).

                    The Commission transmitted its determination in this review to the Secretary of Commerce on February 27, 2012. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 4307 (February 2012), entitled                     *Uranium from Russia: Investigation No. 731-TA-539-C (Third Review).*

By order of the Commission.

Issued: February 27, 2012.

James R. Holbein,

Secretary to the Commission.

# Footnotes

1.                             The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).                    
        Back to Citation      

2.                             Chairman Deanna Tanner Okun did not participate in this review.                    
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2012-5045 Filed 3-1-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
From: "King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov>

To: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Deirdre Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/U S@EPA

Date: 12/23/2010 11:04 AM

Subject: RE: Additional CO NAAQS materials



### Thank you very much, Deirdre and Lydia, I will distribute them immediately.

On monitoring briefing, I suggested to Crystal that we schedule something at EPA’s convenience 1/6, 7

or 8, but I have not heard back from her. Do you think we could confirm a t ime, before folks disappear

for the holiday?

Best regards,

heidi
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

______________________________

No. 06-09-00018-CV

______________________________

TEXARKANA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., Appellant

V.

H&R HOLDINGS, INC., Appellee

 

On Appeal from the 202nd Judicial District Court

Bowie County, Texas

Trial Court No. 07C0093-202

 

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Carter
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Texarkana Construction Company, Inc., the sole appellant in this case, has filed a motion

seeking to dismiss its appeal. Pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1, the motion is granted.

We dismiss the appeal.

Jack Carter

Justice

Date Submitted: April 14, 2009

Date Decided: April 15, 2009
#### Roberta S. ROTH, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. M-84-159.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Feb. 11, 1986.

E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Michael C. Turpén, Atty. Gen., Mary F. Williams Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

On appeal from her conviction in the District Court for Comanche County, Case No. CRM-83-900, on the charge of Soliciting, for which she was sentenced to six (6) months’ imprisonment and fined one thousand ($1,000) dollars, the appellant raises two assignments of error.

For her first assignment of error the appellant alleges that the information on which she was subsequently convicted was insufficient to apprise her of the charges against her and that therefore she could not prepare an adequate defense. The original record is void of a demurrer or motion to quash. Failure to file such demurrer or motion waives any defect in the information except where the court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter. *Nealy*
      *217
      *v. State,*636 P.2d 378 (Okl.Cr.1981). The information clearly shows that the charge was filed under authority of 21 O.S.1981, § 1029(b) which falls within the jurisdiction of the court. This assignment of error is without merit.

For her second assignment of error the appellant alleges that the six (6) months’ sentence and the one thousand ($1,000) dollar fine were excessive. During sentencing the appellant’s attorney requested that the court reduce the sentence because other defendants had been receiving thirty-day sentences upon conviction for the same charge. The court denied the motion stating that the appellant had admitted in her testimony during direct examination that she had been previously convicted of both soliciting and armed robbery. The appellant argues that the court’s knowledge of her past convictions came as a result of her decision to present a defense. The implication of the appellant is that error was committed by the trial court in considering her testimony When refusing to reduce the sentence set by the jury. The appellant does not cite any authority to support her bald contention. This Court has repeatedly stated that whether or not the punishment imposed is excessive is to be determined by a study of all the facts and circumstances surrounding each individual case. This Court does not have the power to modify a sentence unless after such a study we can conscientiously say that the sentence is so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. *Failes v. State,*589 P.2d 1080 (Okl.Cr.1979). Considering the evidence of the appellant’s guilt, and the fact that the sentence imposed was one-half of what could have been imposed, we cannot say that the sentence assessed shocks the conscience of this Court.

An examination of the record shows that the trial court found the appellant to be indigent. We are of the opinion that justice would best be served by modifying the judgment and sentence to a term of six (6) months’ imprisonment, and as so modified, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

PARKS, P.J., and BRETT, J., concur.
Household Finance Corporation                                   
Household Consumer Loan Corporation                             
Household Consumer Loan Trust 1995-1                            
*********************************************                   

                                                                
Original Principal Class A                        750,000,000.00
Number of Class A Bonds (000's)                       750,000.00
Original Principal Class B                        172,196,000.00
Number of Calss B Bond (000's)                        172,196.00
                                                                
Distribution Date                                 Total 1998
Days                                                            
                                                                
CLASS A                                                         
Principal Distribution                            128,820,867.57
Principal Payment Factor (per 1,000 Bond)          171.761156755
                                                                
Interest Distribution                              16,945,727.84
Interest Payment Factor (per 1,000 Bond)            22.594303784
                                                                
                                                                
CLASS B                                                         
Principal Distribution                              6,497,660.41
Principal Payment Factor (per 1,000 Bond)           37.734096112
                                                                
Interest Distribution                              10,891,617.62
Interest Payment Factor (per 1,000 Bond)            63.251281224
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1824 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on lug bottom boots for use 

in fishing waders. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2009 

Mr. BAUCUS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on lug bottom 

boots for use in fishing waders. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LUG BOTTOM BOOTS FOR USE IN FISHING WAD4 ERS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.85 of the Har6 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

7 lug bottom boots for use in fishing waders) is amended 

8 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

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

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1824 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 31.1****Certification**I, C. G. Kum certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of FCB Bancorp for the quarterly periodended March 31, 2006;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation and;  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: May 12, 2006              /s/ C. G. Kum   C.G. Kum   President and Chief Executive Officer  
45
#### Denver Eugene MINER, II, Appellant, v. Peggy Lee MINER, Appellee.

No. 65431.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

March 29, 1988.

*1124C.B. Savage, Savage, O’Donnell, Scott, McNulty & Affeldt, Tulsa, for appellant.

Edwin W. Ash, Ash, Crews & Reid, Ok-mulgee, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ALMA WILSON, Justice:

The parties were divorced in January, 1983. The appellant moved to modify both child and alimony support in September, 1985, alleging a substantial change of condition caused by income reduction since the decree of divorce had been entered. The trial court refused to modify the decree, concluding that it did not have the authority under the 1983 revision of 12 O.S. § 1289 (1983 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 86, § 1) to modify the support alimony ordered in the decree of divorce. The Court of Appeals reversed finding that although the trial court lacked authority at the time it conducted its hearing to reduce support alimony payments, the 1987 revision of § 1289 (1987 Okla.Sess.Laws, ch. 130, § 1) governed the disposition of the appeal, and now provided the authority which the trial court lacked at that time.

In *Nantz v. Nantz,*749 P.2d 1137, (Okla.1988) this Court construed the same statute, subsection D. The issue in *Nantz*was whether § 1289(D) could be applied retrospectively in order to consider a motion to modify the support alimony provisions of a divorce decree granted prior to the effective date of the statute. Subsection D allows modification when the supported party cohabits with a member of the opposite sex. This Court found that wording of the subsequent amendments evidenced a clear intent from the legislature that the statute be given retrospective effect. As the rationale in *Nantz*applies equally to this case, we hold that § 1289(E) must be given retrospective effect.

Although the result of the case published in 58 OBJ 2815 by the Court of Appeals is correct, the reasoning is contrary to that of *Nantz.*We leave undisturbed the decision of the Court of Appeals concerning child support payments.

For the reasons set forth above, we order that the Court of Appeals opinion in the case at bar be withdrawn from publication, and remand this case for consideration of the appellant’s motion to modify the support alimony provisions of the decree of divorce.

CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS WITHDRAWN FROM PUBLICATION, DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED IN PART AND REVERSED IN PART, REMANDED.

DOOLIN, C.J., HARGRAVE, V.C.J., and HODGES and LAVENDER, JJ., concur.

KAUGER, J.,

with whom OPALA and SUMMERS, JJ., join,

dissenting for the reasons expressed in the dissent by OPALA, J. in *Nantz v. Nantz,*749 P.2d 1137 (Okla.1988).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 158 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 158

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the availability 
of industrial development bonds to facilities manufacturing intangible 
                               property.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2009

    Ms. Snowe (for herself, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Brown, and Mrs. Lincoln) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the availability 
of industrial development bonds to facilities manufacturing intangible 
                               property.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF AVAILABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS TO 
              FACILITIES MANUFACTURING INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.

    (a) Expansion to Intangible Property.--
            (1) In general.--The first sentence of section 
        144(a)(12)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (defining 
        manufacturing facility) is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``, creation,'' after ``used in 
                the manufacturing'', and
                    (B) by inserting ``or intangible property which is 
                described in section 197(d)(1)(C)(iii)'' before the 
                period at the end.
            (2) Clarification.--The last sentence of section 
        144(a)(12)(C) of such Code is amended to read as follows: ``For 
        purposes of the first sentence of this subparagraph, the term 
        `manufacturing facility' includes--
                            ``(i) facilities which are functionally 
                        related and subordinate to a manufacturing 
                        facility (determined without regard to this 
                        clause), and
                            ``(ii) facilities which are directly 
                        related and ancillary to a manufacturing 
                        facility (determined without regard to this 
                        clause) if--
                                    ``(I) such facilities are located 
                                on the same site as the manufacturing 
                                facility, and
                                    ``(II) not more than 25 percent of 
                                the net proceeds of the issue are used 
                                to provide such facilities.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to bonds issued after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**RAVEN
      GOLD CORP.**




**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**




**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**




I,
      Bashir
      Virji, the Chief Financial Officer of Raven Gold Corp. (the "Company"), certify,
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended July
      31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
      or
      15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
      and




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




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







Date:
                September  12, 2007*/s/
                Bashir Virji*
              Bashir
                Virji
              Chief
                Financial Officer, acting Principal Financial Officer, and
              acting
                Principal Accounting Officer