alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

Kelly, Shaheerah

From: Dwight Mallory <Dmallory@resoluteenergy.com>

Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 2:00 PM

To: Kelly, Shaheerah

Cc: Patrick Flynn

Subject: MCU Gas Analysis and Blower Capacity

Attachments: MCU Plant flare blower infor.pdf; removed.txt

Shaheerah,

Per our discussion this afternoon regarding Resolute’s comments to the draft PSD permit, attached are 2014 gas

analyses representative of gas combusted in the MCU Main Flare. Also attached is documentation of the existing, fixed‐

speed, air‐assist blower capacity of 4,346 CFM.

Dwight E. Mallory

Environmental/Regulatory Manager

Resolute Energy Corporation

1700 Lincoln Street, Suite 2800

Denver, CO 80203

Direct: 303-573-4886 X 1165

This e‐mail message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential,

privileged, and proprietary information of Resolute Energy Corporation. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or

distribution may be prohibited under law. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply E‐

mail of any erroneous transmission, and destroy the original E‐mail, any attachments, and all copies of the original

message. Thank you.
#### INDUSTRIAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance corporation, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant, v. CROWN AUTO DEALERSHIPS, INC., a Florida Corporation, Stone Buick, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendants-Counterplaintiffs. SOUTHEASTERN FIDELITY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DIMMITT CHEVROLET, INC., Larry Dimmitt Cadillac, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counterdefendant, v. LEE RAGATZ VOLKSWAGEN, INC., Defendant-Counterplaintiff. FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. KENYON DODGE, INC., Defendant.

No. 90-3359.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 29, 1994.

William F. McGowan, Jr., Carlton, Fields, Ward, Emmanuel, Smith & Cutler, P.A., Tampa, FL, Joseph W. Dorn, J. Vance Hughes and Thomas K. Bick, Kilpatrick & Cody, Washington, DC, for appellants.

Robert E. Austin, Jr., Austin, Lawrence & Landis, Leesburg, FL and Hal K. Litchford, Orlando, FL, for appellee.

Jeff G. Peters, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, FL, amicus curiae, State of Fla.

Thomas W. Brunner, Wiley, Rein *&*Fielding, Washington, DC, amicus curiae, Ins. Environmental Litigation Ass’n.

*152Before ANDERSON and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON *, Senior Circuit Judge.

*

 Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

In an opinion published at 935 F.2d 240 (11th Cir.1991), the controlling issue of law in this case was certified to the Supreme Court of Florida. That court has now ruled. *Dim-mitt Chevrolet, Inc. v. Southeastern Fidelity Insurance Corp.,*636 So.2d 700 (Fla.1993), *reh’g den.*(Fla. March 31, 1994).

Pursuant to the opinion of the Supreme Court of Florida, the judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
LARRY LEGEL, CPA

Practice Concentrating in
Taxation and Securities

800 W. Cypress Creek Road, Suite 470
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309

Tel: (954) 493-8900
Fax: (954) 493-8300
e-mail: legelcpa@bellsouth.net

ACCOUNTANT'S REVIEW REPORT

Shareholders
Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc.
Leesburg, FL


I have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of
Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc. as of and for the periods ending
June 30, 2003 and 2004, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, and shareholders'equity and cash flows
for three months ending June 30, 2003 and 2004 in
accordance with standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  All information included in these
financial statements is the representation of the management of
Bernard, Allan & Edwards, Inc.

A review consists principally of inquiries of company personnel and
analytical procedures applied to financial data.  It is substantially
less in scope than an audit in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards, the objective of which is the expression of an
opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, I do not express such an opinion.

Based on my review, I am not aware of any material modifications
that should be made to the accompanying financial statements in
order for them to be in conformity with Accounting Principles
Generally Accepted in the United States.




Larry Legel, CPA

August 11, 2004
Ft Lauderdale, FL
##### 



Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his
capacity as an officer of Emmis Operating Company (the Company), that, to his
knowledge:



|(1) |  | the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
November 30, 2003, 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 report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.
|--- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: January 14, 2004/s/ WALTER Z. BERGER
Walter Z. Berger
Executive Vice President, Treasurerand Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 15

October 15, 2003

The Board of Directors
and ShareholdersEmmis Communications Corporation and Subsidiaries

We are aware of the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-83890, 333-14657, 333-42878,
333-71904 and 333-92318) of Emmis Communications Corporation and the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-62172) of Emmis
Communications Corporation and Emmis Operating Company (collectively, Emmis)
of our report dated September 25, 2003 relating to the unaudited condensed consolidated
interim financial statements of Emmis Communications Corporation and Emmis Operating
Company that are included in Emmis Form 10-Q for the quarter ended August 31, 2003.
Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 our report is not part of the
registration statement prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of Section
7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. It should be noted that we have not performed any
procedures subsequent to September 25, 2003.

Very truly yours,

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
ERNST
& YOUNG LLP
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, John Hiner, President and Chief Executive Officer of Geocom Resources Inc., and Paul Chung, Chief Financial Officer of Geocom Resources Inc., each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Geocom Resources Inc. for the interim period ended September 30, 2004 (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 Geocom Resources Inc.

Dated:  November 15, 2004

/s/ John Hiner	John Hiner
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

/s/ Paul Chung		Paul Chung
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1482 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1482

   To amend chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, to deem all 
  Federal employees to be essential employees, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 15, 1995

   Mr. Grams introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend chapter 13 of title 31, United States Code, to deem all 
  Federal employees to be essential employees, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ALL FEDERAL EMPLOYEES DEEMED TO BE ESSENTIAL EMPLOYEES.

    Section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) by inserting after the first sentence ``All officers 
        and employees of the United States Government or the District 
        of Columbia government shall be deemed to be performing 
        services relating to emergencies involving the safety of human 
        life or the protection of property.''; and
            (2) by striking out the last sentence.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JOHN VINCENT KENNEDY,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 92 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 24th day of July, 2017

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
#### MERCANTILE COMMERCE BANK & TRUST CO., Trustee, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America.

No. 11329.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Aug. 1, 1939.

Forest P. Tralles and Fred J. Hoffmeister, both of St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.

Harry C. Blanton, U. S. Atty., of Sikeston, Mo., Herbert H. Freer, Asst. U. S. Atty., of St. Louis, Mo., James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Andrew D. Sharpe and Leon F. Cooper, Sp. Assts. to Atty. Gen.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal, Brown v. United States, 21 F.Supp. 214, dismissed at cost of appellant, per stipulation of party.
Exhibit 23


              INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT AND REPORT ON SCHEDULES



The Board of Directors
Penn-America Group, Inc.


We consent to the use of our report dated January 18, 2002 in this Annual Report
(Form 10-K) of Penn-America Group, Inc.. Our audit also included the financial
statement schedules of Penn-America Group, Inc. listed in Item 14(a) as of
December 31, 2001 and for the year then ended. These schedules are the
responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion based on our audit.

In our opinion, the financial statement schedules referred to above, when
considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole,
present fairly in all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-82728 and Form S-3 No. 333-33474) of Penn-America Group and its
subsidiaries of this report and our report dated January 18, 2002, with respect
to the consolidated financial statements of Penn-America Group, Inc.,
incorporated by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year end
December 31, 2001.


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 27, 2002
Exhibit 13.2




CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Elbit Vision Systems Ltd. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yaron Menashe, Chief Financial Officer 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, that to my knowledge:
 
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  July 15, 2010

/S/ Yaron Menashe

Yaron Menashe

Chief Financial Officer and

Principal Accounting 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.
##### Table of Contents



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, DC 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): December 9, 2008
 
 PACIFIC SUNWEAR OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)
 California
(State or Other Jurisdiction of 
Incorporation)
    
    0-21296
(Commission File Number)
    
    95-3759463
(IRS Employer
Identification No.)3450 East Miraloma Avenue 
Anaheim, CA
(Address of Principal Executive Offices)
    
    
    
    92806-2101
(Zip Code)
 714-414-4000

(Registrants telephone number, including area code)
 
  o
    
    Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)
 o
    
    Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))
 o
    
    Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.Item 8.01 Other Events.Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.SIGNATURESEXHIBIT INDEXEXHIBIT 10.1    Table of Contents  
 Item 5.02 Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of
Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers.
    
    
    Severance pay in an aggregate amount equal to $826,667, to be paid in installments over
the next year commencing in June 2009;
    
    A payment in June 2009 representing the expected cost of COBRA premiums for continued
medical coverage for 12 months following Mr. Kennedys separation; and
    
    Payment or reimbursement for up to $10,000 of outplacement costs.
   
 Item 8.01 Other Events.
  
 Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits.
 (d)
    
    Exhibits.
 10.1
    
    Employment Separation and General Release Agreement between the Company
and Thomas M. Kennedy, dated as of December 12, 2008.
 -2-




---



##### Table of Contents



SIGNATURES
  Dated: December 12, 2008
    Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc./s/ Michael L. HenryMichael L. HenrySenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary -3-




---



##### Table of Contents



EXHIBIT INDEX
 ExhibitNo.
    
    Document10.1
    
    Employment Separation and General Release Agreement between the
Company and Thomas M. Kennedy, dated as of December 12, 2008.
 -4-
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5044 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5044

  To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the treatment of 
 certain surviving spouses under the contracting goals and preferences 
                 of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2018

Mr. Chabot (for himself and Mr. Bergman) introduced the following bill; 
        which was referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the treatment of 
 certain surviving spouses under the contracting goals and preferences 
                 of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Service-Disabled Veterans Small 
Business Continuation Act''.

SEC. 2. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT REGARDING TREATMENT OF CERTAIN SURVIVING 
              SPOUSES UNDER CONTRACTING GOALS AND PREFERENCES OF 
              DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS.

    Effective on the date specified in subsection (e) of section 1832 
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public 
Law 114-328; 130 Stat. 2660), section 8127(k)(3) of title 38, United 
States Code, as amended by such section 1832, is further amended by 
inserting after the period at the end the following new sentence: ``A 
surviving spouse of such a veteran who is not covered by subparagraph 
(C)(i) of such section by reason of the disability rating of the 
veteran being less than 100 percent shall be treated as being so 
covered during the period beginning on the date of the death of the 
veteran and ending on the date that is three years after such death, 
the date on which the surviving spouse remarries, or the date on which 
the surviving spouse relinquishes an ownership interest in the small 
business concern, whichever occurs first.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Christian Lutz *v.*Louisa Lutz.

Where condonation is interposed as a defence to an action for divorce on the ground of adultery, petitioner may file a supplemental petition charging-defendant -with acts of adultery subsequent to the alleged condonation, andJ subsequent to the commencement of the action.

On application for leave to file supplemental petition.

*Mr. Abner Kalisch,*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Rutherford Coleman,*for the defendant.

Green, V. C.

Application is made by the solicitor of petitioner for leave to file a supplemental petition, for the purpose of charging adultery committed by the defendant subsequent to the alleged condonation, by the petitioner, of the previously charged act of adultery, and subsequent to the commencement of the suit.

It is undoubtedly the rule, in general, that leave will not be granted to file a supplemental bill or petition setting up subsequent acts of adultery *(Milner*v. *Milner, 2 Edw. Ch. 114),*and this proceeds on the ground that the acts charged, each of them, constitute a cause of action, and that there is no dependence of one upon the other. This rule, however, does not apply in this case, for there is a direct connection between the original cause of action and that contemplated by this application. Condonation is conditional forgiveness of a matrimonial offence, which may be destroyed by the commission of another matrimonial offence, even of a lesser degree; the condition is that the one forgiven will treat the injured one with conjugal affection and kindness, and any violation of this condition will revive the *242cause of action which was before forgiven. When condonation is interposed as a defence, it is an answer to this, that the condition inherent in the condonation has been broken by the commission of a subsequent matrimonial offence, and so there is a .direct connection between the two alleged offences.

1 If not pleaded it might be justly objected to on the ground *'of*surprise.

If it had happened before the commencement of the suit, it might be incorporated by amendment, but if after, can be introduced by a supplemental bill or petition.

The motion should be granted.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350**

 

Solely forthe purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, I, the undersigned ChiefFinancial Officer of Liquidmetal Technologies (the “Company”), herebycertifies, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (AmendmentNo. 1) of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| /s/  Young Ham           |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| Young Ham, Chief Financial Officer |
| July 20, 2006                      |

 

37

----
Relative High School Completion Rates in Appalachia, 2006–2010

(County Rates as a Percentage of the U.S. Average)

A high school completion rate is the percentage of persons ages 

25 and over with a high school diploma or more. The percent of the 

U.S. average is computed by dividing the county high school 

completion rate by the national average and multiplying by 100. 

The map uses critical breaks such as the national average to 

organize the data into groups of common values.

Map Created: October 2013

Data Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 

American Community Survey, 2006–2010

0 50 100 

Miles 

GEORGIA 

ALABAMA 

MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTH 

CAROLINA 

NORTH CAROLINA 

VIRGINIA 

WEST 

VIRGINIA 

KENTUCKY 

OHIO ILLINOIS INDIANA 

WISCONSIN 

MICHIGAN 

DE 

NJ PENNSYLVANIA 

MARYLAND 

NEW YORK 

TENNESSEE

66.2% - 74.9%

75.0% - 84.9%

85.0% - 99.9% 

100.0% - 108.9%

Percent of the U.S. Average 

(Critical Breaks Classification) 

U.S. average = 85.0%

Appalachian average = 82.9%
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                         |   |   |                                                                                     |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Date: February 22, 2011 |   |   | /s/ Gary R. Smith                                                                        |
|                         |   |   | Gary R. SmithSecretary/Treasurer and Chief Financial OfficerSunRidge International, Inc. |

----
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0239 Directorate ID: 2010-SW-087-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH Model EC135 P1, P2, P2+, T1, T2, and T2+ 

Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 227 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the main transmission and 

subsequent loss of control of the helicopter.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $10 corrugated washer

$73 housing upper part machining

Labor per Helicopter

(0.5 work-hour x 

$85/work-hour for the

corrugated washer

installation)

(5 work-hours x $85/workhour for the housing upper 

part machining)

$43

$425

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $53 corrugated washer installation

$498 housing upper part machining

Total US Fleet Cost $12,031 corrugated washer installation

$113,046 housing upper part machining

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No ()

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No ()

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No ()

Project Engineer: Chinh Vuong