alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COMPANY STATEMENT
    
    For analyst and media enquiries please18 June 2008
    
    call Russell Chenu on: (02) 8274 5239
 James Hardie anticipates further ATO action
in respect of the 2002 tax audit
          1




---



##### 



Media/Analyst Enquiries:
 
 Telephone:
    
    +61 2 8274 5239Email:
    
    media@jameshardie.com.auFacsimile:
    
    +61 2 8274 5218
 Disclaimer
  
    
    expectations about the timing and amount of payments to the Asbestos Injuries
Compensation Fund (AICF), a special purpose fund for the compensation of proven
asbestos-related personal injury and death claims;
 
    
    expectations concerning the costs associated with the suspension of operations at our
Blandon, Pennsylvania and Plant City, Florida plants;
 
    
    statements as to the possible consequences of proceedings brought against us and
certain of our former directors and officers by the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission;
    
    statements regarding tax liabilities and related proceedings;
    
    expectations that our credit facilities will be extended or renewed;
    
    projections of our operating results or financial condition;
    
    statements regarding our plans, objectives or goals, including those relating to
competition, acquisitions, dispositions and our products;
    
    statements about our future performance; and
    
    statements about product or environmental liabilities.
   2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000             MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,498                   1,761
<SECURITIES>                                     6,297                   4,619
<RECEIVABLES>                                       55                   1,305
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                     555
<INVENTORY>                                          0                     584
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,041                   7,834
<PP&E>                                           1,531                   1,006
<DEPRECIATION>                                     836                     505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  11,768                   8,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,470                     949
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                           105                      83
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,041                   7,835
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    11,768                   8,867
<SALES>                                              7                   1,127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   483                   1,673
<CGS>                                              579                   1,417
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      930                   1,600
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,352                   9,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,140)                 (9,270)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,140)                 (9,270)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.13)                  (1.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.3








Certification
of Senior Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)








CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350)







In
connection with the Annual Report of Century Casinos, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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, 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
17, 2008






/s/
Larry Hannappel


Larry
Hannappel


Senior
Vice President (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6831

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

KENNETH ADAMS,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. T. S. Ellis, III, Senior District Judge. (1:88-cr-00046-TSE-1)

Submitted: May 30, 2024 Decided: June 3, 2024

Before GREGORY and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Adams, Appellant Pro Se. Tony Ray Roberts, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6831 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Adams appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for 

compassionate release. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. Adams, No. 

1:88-cr-00046-TSE-1 (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 20, 2023; entered Apr. 21, 2023). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6831 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/03/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification by Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
   /s/ William D. Humes

Name: William D. HumesTitle: Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 23.1 -- CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the inclusion of our
report dated February 4, 2000 (except for the matters discussed in Note 13, as
to which the date is March 27, 2000) in this Form 10-K and to the incorporation
by reference of such report in the company's previously filed Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-24281) and Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-24269.)

                                                     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 27, 2000
Mar6 Tsirigotis 

# 9t, Director Office of Transpoátion and Air Quality S741 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

4 L o1

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION Mr. Samuel I. Gutter Mr. Timothy K. Webster Counsel for Cummins Incorporated Sidley Austin LLP 1501 KStreet,NW Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Gutter and Mr. Webster: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency received your letter to Administrator Jackson dated February 15, 2012, in which you request an Agency stay of the Interim Final Rule; Nonconformance Penalties for On-Highway Heaiy Heavy-Duty Diesel Engines. Your request noted that you are aware that several other manufacturers have also requested a stay and that you will treat your "petition as denied should the EPA deny any of those other requests." Therefore we are informing you that the EPA has denied the other requests. Our responses to these requests are enclosed. Since you have already indicated that you will treat these denials as a denial of your request, we do not plan to send you a more detailed response to your request.

Internet Address (URL) . http://www epa gay Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks or, 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper
cc: Hon. Kimberly A. Wanker, District Judge 

Lisa E. Gager 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Nye County District Attorney 

Nye County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1907A 90,0 0
Exhibit
23.1








Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board
of Directors


Astoria
Financial Corporation:








We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Astoria Financial Corporation on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-86248, 33-86250, 33-98500,
333-36807, 333-64895, 333-113745, 333-113785, 333-130544 and 333-147580), Form
S-4 (Nos. 333-101694, 333-29901, 333-58897 and 333-30792) and Form S-3 (No.
33-98532) of our reports dated February 26, 2010 with respect to (i) the
consolidated statements of financial condition of Astoria Financial Corporation
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated
statements of income, changes in stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and (ii) the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,
2009, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Astoria Financial Corporation.











/s/ KPMG
LLP


New York,
New York


February
26, 2010
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1878 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1878

To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prohibit the licensing 
of a permanent or interim nuclear waste storage facility outside the 50 
      States or the District of Columbia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 13, 1996

   Mr. Akaka introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 to prohibit the licensing 
of a permanent or interim nuclear waste storage facility outside the 50 
      States or the District of Columbia, 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. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO LICENSE NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE 
              FACILITIES.

    Title I of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (42 U.S.C. 10121 et 
seq.) is amended by inserting after section 101 the following:

``SEC. 102. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY TO LICENSE, CONSTRUCT, OR OPERATE 
              NUCLEAR WASTE STORAGE FACILITIES.

    ``The Commission shall not have authority, under this Act or any 
other law, to issue a license for, and it shall be unlawful for any 
person to construct or operate, a facility or repository for interim or 
permanent storage of low-level radioactive waste, high-level 
radioactive waste, or spent nuclear fuel at a place outside 1 of the 50 
States or the District of Columbia.''.
                                 <all>
```
Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter 

# United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-2199 MAGDALENA RODRÍGUEZ CORDERO AND JOSÉ OSCAR RAMOS, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. CENTRO DE SALUD DE LARES, INC., Defendant, Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO [Hon. José A. Fusté, U.S. District Judge ] Before Howard, Selya and Thompson, Circuit Judges . Alfredo Castellanos Bayouth , Anabelle Quiñones-Rodríguez and Castellanos & Gierbolini Law Firmon brief, for appellants. Raynaldo Quintana Latorre , Carolina Santa Cruz-Sadurní and Baerga & Quintana Law Offices on brief, for appellee. June 20, 2014**Per Curiam .**  Having carefully reviewed the papers in this case, we summarily affirm the judgment below for substantially the reasons articulated in the district court's lucid opinion. See Rodríguez-Cordero v. Centro de Salud de Lares, Inc. , No. 11-2258, 2013 WL 4045705 (D.P.R. Aug. 7, 2013). **Affirmed .**  See 1st Cir. R. 27.0(c).
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly  Report of In Vivo Medical  Diagnostics,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended October 31, 2004 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  I, John Fuller,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  provided to In Vivo Medical  Diagnostics,  Inc. and will be retained by In
Vivo Medical  Diagnostics,  Inc. and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

March 17, 2005                             /s/ John Fuller
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John Fuller
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Rane Wilson 

Environmental & Regulatory Supervisor 

Anadarko Petroleum Corporation 

1 

Shale Gas Water Management 

Marcellus Initiative 2012 

March 29, 2012 
Overview & Disclaimer 

Water Storage Options 

Freshwater 

Flowback 

Production 

Recycled 

Safe Storage of Flowback and Production Water 

Above Ground Risk Mitigation 

Below Ground Risk Mitigation 

Cost Effectiveness 

March 29, 2012 2 
Freshwater Storage Options 

March 29, 2012 3 

Frac Tanks 

“Modular” Storage
Freshwater Storage Options 

March 29, 2012 4 

Impoundments
Freshwater Storage Options 

Above Ground Storage 

Tanks (ASTs) 

March 29, 2012 5 
Flowback & Production Water 

Storage 

March 29, 2012 6 

Flowback 

On Location 

• Frac Tanks 

• Other ? 

Off Location 

• Centralized Impoundments 

• ASTs 

Production Water 

ASTs 
Recycled Water Storage 

March 29, 2012 7 

Frac Tanks 

Centralized 

Impoundments 

ASTs
Safe Storage of Flowback & Production 

Water 

March 29, 2012 8 

Frac equip & storage lined 

Static-free, anti-slip, & tear resistant 

Continuous visual inspection with repair/

replace capability on site 

Separate, individual containment under 

engines/pumps 

Continuous monitoring during all fluid 

transfers (“Eyes On”) 

Production ASTs 

Tank batteries located within lined 

containment 
Integrated Water Distribution 

March 29, 2012 9 
Above Ground Risk Mitigation 

March 29, 2012 10 

Proper Planning & Design 

Proximal to Development Area 

Semi- to Permanent 

Site Constraints 

Topography 

Soils/Bedrock 

Type of Fluid 

Containment ? 

Permits ? 

Construction Oversight 

Impacts to other ops 

Operations 

Inspection 

Monitoring/Alarms 

Security 

Summer/Winter Ops 
Below Ground Risk Mitigation 

Proper Planning, Design & Construction 

Location, location, location 

Type of Fluid Stored 

Permits 

Construction Standards 

• Sub-base 

• Primary & Secondary Liner 

• Interstitial Leak Detection System 

• Groundwater Monitoring (4 wells) 

Operations 

Inlet/Outlet Manifolds 

Level and Alarm Telemetry 

Inspection 

Security 

Winter/Summer 

March 29, 2012 11 
Cost Effectiveness 

Above Ground Storage 

Low profile modular (1 to 3 MGs) ~$200K to $500K, plus site 

preparation/construction 

Large diameter bolted tanks (1 to 4 MGs)~$1.5M to $6M 

Below Ground Storage 

Freshwater (10 to 15 MGs) ~$850K to $1.2M 

Centralized (8 to 15 MGs)~ $1.2 to $2M 

March 29, 2012 12 
March 29, 2012 13
In the United States Court of Federal Claims

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 13-411V

Filed: February 4, 2015

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * UNPUBLISHED

ROBERT L PIRRELLO, *

 * Special Master Gowen

Petitioner, *

 * Stipulation; Attorneys’ Fees & Costs

v. *

 * 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH * 

AND HUMAN SERVICES, *

 *

Respondent. *

 *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, Maglio Christopher & Toale, PA, Sarasota, FL for petitioner.

Gordon E. Shemin, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for 

respondent.

DECISION ON ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS1

Gowen, Special Master:

In this case under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program,2 I issued 

a Decision on December 19, 2014, adopting the parties’ stipulation for award. On 

February 4, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Fact concerning attorneys’ fees and 

costs. Additionally, pursuant to General Order #9, petitioner’s filing from December 22, 

2014 indicated that petitioner incurred no personal litigation costs.

The parties’ stipulation indicates that respondent does not object to the amended 

amount of $21,000 that petitioner is requesting for attorneys’ fees and costs. 

1 Because this unpublished decision contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I intend 

to post this decision on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website, in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-347, § 205, 116 Stat. 2899, 2913 (codified as amended at 44 

U.S.C. § 3501 note (2006)). In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), petitioner has 14 days to identify and 

move to delete medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will 

delete such material from public access.

2 The applicable statutory provisions defining the program are found at 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-10 et seq.

(2006). 

1

 
I find that this petition was brought in good faith and that there existed a 

reasonable basis for the claim. Therefore, an award for fees and costs is appropriate, 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 300aa-15(b) and (e)(1). Further, the proposed amount seems 

reasonable and appropriate. Accordingly, I hereby award:

• a lump sum of $21,000.00 in the form of a check payable jointly to 

petitioner and petitioner’s attorney, Diana Stadelnikas Sedar, for 

petitioner’s attorneys’ fees and costs.

The clerk of the court shall enter judgment in accordance herewith.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Thomas L. Gowen

 Thomas L. Gowen

Special Master

3 Entry of judgment can be expedited by each party’s filing of a notice renouncing the right to seek review. 

See Vaccine Rule 11(a).

2
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

!(vou make dlullg<!s to the valu<!s ill t/1<! tub!<! bdow. you 11//lstensw·e the totals update occording/y. (( 

ti1E:v do not. dick (or TahJ i11to wu1 rh<!n our of the changed a ll. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action 

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

(e.g., Inspection, propeller, appliance) 

Work-hours Labor Patts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost 

replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h patts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

D etailed Inspection 7.0 184 

Minimum thick ness 

and Machining 7.0 184 

D efect Inspection 

' 

' 

,, ' 

' ' 

' 

The known number of products in compliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $218,960 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Cond ition Costs: 0 

Action 

Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(e.g., Inspection, (include access, (@$85/hour) 

replacement) testing, and closeup) 

Replacement 6.0 $13,720 

Overhaul 6.0 ' 

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field ro explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This.freld can also be used to explain warranty costs): 
Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? .a 

YES* D NO [g) 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

Is the AD significant? ~ 

YES* D NO [g) 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

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

either a Yes or No answer. ~ 

YES D NO [g) 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES* D NO [g) 

*Explanation:
#### John L. CORRIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. T. GERMANY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-55187.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002.*

Decided July 31, 2002.

Before: BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

John L. Corrigan appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in his civil rights action alleging violation of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights arising from two relat*140ed encounters with two San Bernardino County welfare fraud investigators (the “Investigators”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and, after de novo review, *Lopez v. Smith,*203 F.3d 1122, 1131 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc), we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that the Investigators had authority to stop Corrigan for speeding. *See*Cal.Penal Code §§ 15, 16, 830.35, 836 (a welfare fraud investigator is a peace officer authorized to arrest a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed an infraction in the officer’s presence); Cal. Veh.Code §§ 22348(a), 40000.1 (speeding is an infraction). The district court also properly concluded that the Investigators’ request to see Corrigan’s driver’s license and vehicle registration, at a second encounter that was initiated by Corrigan, did not' violate his constitutional rights. *See Florida v. Bostick,*501 U.S. 429, 434, 111 S.Ct. 2382, 115 L.Ed.2d 389 (1991).

Corrigan’s contention on appeal that the summary judgment violated his right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment is without merit. *See Etalook v. Exxon Pipeline Co.,*831 F.2d 1440, 1447 (9th Cir.1987).

Corrigan’s contention that the magistrate judge and district judge were biased is not supported by the record. *See*28 U.S.C. § 455(a).'

The magistrate judge did not err in declining to consider Corrigan’s untimely opposition to summary judgment, which arrived after the magistrate judge issued the Report and Recommendation. ; *Cf. Carpenter v. Universal Star Shipping, S.A.,*924 F.2d 1539, 1547 (9th Cir.1991) (district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to consider late submission of expert deposition in opposition to summary judgment).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.