alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. 

United Taconite, LLC 

Forbes, Minnesota 

TABLE 6 

SULFUR DIOXIDE REMOVAL EFFICIENCY DETERMINATION 

Line 2 Waste Gas Stacks 

Sulfur Mass Balance Determination 

Barr Engineering Co. 

January 28,2010 

II-'arameter i waste Gas ~tack 2A : Waste Gas ~tack 2tj I 

Test Date ! 12/10/2009 I 12/8/2009 I 

Test Period i 1102-1509 I 1043-1055 I I 

* Fuel Consumption Rate, TPH ! 10.82 i 9.12 i 

** Fuel Moisture Content I 1.3 1.21 

* Greenball Feed Rate, L TPH 600 587 

** Greenball Moisture Content, % 9.56 9.63 

Taconite Production Rate, L TPH 527 512 

** Fuel Sulfur Content, % dry 3.61 I 3.67 

***Greenball Sulfur Content, % dry 0.005 0.005 

***Taconite Sulfur Content, % dry 0.003 0.002 I 

Total Sulfur input, Ib/hr (1) 832 722 

Sulfur Output with Fired Pellets, Ib/hr (2) 34 28 

Sulfur Loading to Scrubbers, Ib/hr (3) 798 I 694 i i 

Sulfur Dioxide Loading to Scrubbers, Ib/hr (4) I 1595 I 1388 i i 

Average Sulfur Dioxide Loading Rate to Scrubbers, Ib/hn 1492 I 

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Rate from Scrubbers, Ib/hr (5) I 1081 

Sulfur Dioxide Removal EffiCiency, % , 

t 27.5 I 

~ t- rom I-'rocess uata 

** Laboratory data from TPT 

*** Laboratory Results. ASTM Method 1915-07a (average ofTPT and Lerch Bros Results) 

(1) Sulfur Input, Ib/hr = [(Greenball Feedrate to Kiln,L TPH x 2240 Ib/L T) x (1-Greenball Moisture Content, 

%/100) x (Greenball Sulfur Content, %/100)] + [(Fuel consumption Rate, TPH x 2000 Ib/ton) x (1-Fuel 

Moisture Content, %/100) x (Fuel Sulfur Content) 

(2) Sulfur Output with Fired Pellets = (Fired Pellet Production Rate, L TPH x 2240 Ib/L T) x ( Fired Pellet 

Sulfur Content, %/100) 

(3) Sulfur Loading Rates to Scrubbers = (Sulfur Input - Sulfur Output with Fired Pellets) 

(4) S02 Loading Rate to Scrubbers = Sulfur Loading Rate, Ib/hr x Ib mol/32 Ib sulfur x 64 Ib S02/lb mol 

(5) As Determined from EPA Method 6C Stack Tests (combined average emissions from both stacks) 

This document is protected Attorney Work Product requested by counsel in anticipation of litigation. Do not disclose without consent of counsel.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the inclusion in this 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Lehman Brothers Inc. (the "Company") of our report dated January 4, 2001.

    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements and Post Effective Amendments on Form S-3 File Nos. 333-08319 and
333-51913 of the Company, and in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated
January 4, 2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the
Company included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
November 30, 2000.

                                          Ernst & Young LLP

New York, New York
February 28, 2001
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned, Maritza Ramirez, Chief Financial Officer of Gateway Industries,
Inc. a  Delaware  corporation  (the  "Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to her
knowledge, that:

The Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB for the year ended  December  31, 2002 of the
Company (the "Report") fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information  contained in
the Report fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition
and results of operations of the Company.

                                                /s/ Maritza Ramirez
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Maritza Ramirez
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                March 7, 2003
```
Exhibit 32.1



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, filed herewith.



Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and

Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

(the
Companies)



Written Statement by Chief
Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I certify to the best of my knowledge and belief that the Companies Form 10-Q periodic
report containing their respective financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that information contained in that report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Companies as of that date.



|                                               
|-----------------------------------------------
|                                               
|/s/ Michael D. Lockhart                        
|Michael D. Lockhart                            
|Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
|Armstrong Holdings, Inc. and                   
|Armstrong World Industries, Inc.               



Dated: July 29, 2004



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

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1533 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1533

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain shipping 
                    from the harbor maintenance tax.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2011

 Mr. Tiberi (for himself, Mr. Higgins, and Mr. LaTourette) introduced 
  the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and 
                                 Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt certain shipping 
                    from the harbor maintenance tax.

    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 ``Short Sea Shipping Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTION OF CERTAIN COMMERCIAL CARGO FROM THE HARBOR 
              MAINTENANCE TAX.

    (a) In General.--Section 4462 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
is amended by redesignating subsection (i) as subsection (j) and by 
inserting after subsection (h) the following new subsection:
    ``(i) Exemption for Certain Short Sea Shipping Cargo.--
            ``(1) In general.--No tax shall be imposed under section 
        4461(a) with respect to commercial cargo (other than bulk 
        cargo) that is loaded at--
                    ``(A) a port in the United States mainland and 
                unloaded at another port in the United States mainland 
                after transport solely by coastal route or river or 
                unloaded at a port in Canada located in the Great Lakes 
                St. Lawrence Seaway System, or
                    ``(B) a port in Canada located in the Great Lakes 
                St. Lawrence Seaway System and unloaded at a port in 
                the United States mainland.
            ``(2) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                    ``(A) Bulk cargo.--The term `bulk cargo' has the 
                meaning given that term by section 53101(1) of title 
                46, United States Code.
                    ``(B) Great lakes st. lawrence seaway system.--The 
                term `Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway System' means the 
                waterway between Duluth, Minnesota, and Nova Scotia, 
                encompassing the 5 Great Lakes, their connecting 
                channels, and the St. Lawrence River.
                    ``(C) United states mainland.--The term `United 
                States mainland' has the meaning given such term in 
                subsection (b)(3).''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to port use after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Certification
      of CEO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350,


as
      Adopted Pursuant to Section 906


of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned certifies that (1) this Annual
Report of Capital City Bank Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (this “Report”), fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and (2) the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition of the Company and its results of
operations as of and for the periods covered therein.











/s/ J. Kimbrough
Davis


J.
Kimbrough Davis


Executive
Vice President and


Chief
      Financial Officer







Date:
March 4, 2010
July 7, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SANTOS SAN JUAN D/B/A SANTOS WRECKER REPAIR, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00407-CV V.

JOSE SEGOVIA, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Jose Segovia, 

signed March 4, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected 

the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court 

below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Santos San Juan d/b/a Santos Wrecker Repair, to pay all 

costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph MORIARITY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-4924.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 26, 2002.

Decided Aug. 8, 2002.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, G. Alan DuBois, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jane E. Pearce, Research and Writing Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Moriarity pled guilty to conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871 (2000) in the Western District of Pennsylvania. He was sentenced to twenty-four months probation in May 2001. The district court subsequently transferred jurisdiction to the Eastern District of North Carolina and expressly consented to that district’s ability to change Moriarity’s period of probation or supervised release. While on probation, Moriarity failed to abide by the conditions of the community corrections center in which he was housed, and failed to abstain from the use of alcohol. The district court revoked Moriarity’s probation and sentenced Moriarity to twelve months imprisonment to be followed by a thirty-six month term of supervised release.

Moriarity’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), addressing whether the district court abused its discretion by sentencing Moriarity to twelve months imprisonment, but stating that in his opinion there were no meritorious issues. Moriarity has submitted a pro se supplemental brief addressing the same issue.

Under *U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual*§ 7B1.4 (2000), Moriarity’s guidelines range was six to twelve months. Moreover, he was subject to a maximum term of supervised release of thirty-six months. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) (2000). Finding no abuse of discretion in the sentence, we affirm. *United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995) (providing standard of review).

As required by *Anders,*we have examined the entire record and find no other meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw *from*representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client.

*580We 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.*
#### Calvin L. DIXON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37099.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 18, 1964.

DeWitt O. Dunaway, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., Eddie Davis, Steve Guittard, Ross Teeter and C. M. Turlington, Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for robbery; the punishment, thirty-five years.

The evidence includes a written statement signed by the appellant, which the state introduced in evidence before the jury. The statement is incriminating and connects the appellant with the commission of the offense of robbery charged against him and for which he was herein convicted.

An issue as to the voluntary nature of the written statement was raised by the evidence. Such issue was submitted by the court in its charge to the jury without the trial court having resolved the issue of whether the written statement was voluntarily made. Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368, 84 S.Ct. 1774, 12 L.Ed.2d 908, requires that the judgment be reversed and remanded for a trial at which the issue as to the voluntariness of the confession may be resolved. See Lopez v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 345, and Harris v. State, Tex. Cr.App., 384 S.W.2d 349, decided November 11, 1964.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1335 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1335

 To revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to 
     include the Gettysburg Train Station, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 1, 2011

  Mr. Platts introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To revise the boundaries of the Gettysburg National Military Park to 
     include the Gettysburg Train Station, 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. GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK BOUNDARY REVISION.

    Section 1 of the Act titled ``An Act to revise the boundary of the 
Gettysburg National Military Park in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 
and for other purposes'', approved August 17, 1990 (16 U.S.C. 430g-4), 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(d) Additional Land.--In addition to the land identified in 
subsections (a) and (b), the park shall include the following, as 
depicted on the map titled `Gettysburg National Military Park Proposed 
Boundary Addition', numbered 305/80,045 and dated January 2010:
            ``(1) The land and interests in land commonly known as the 
        `Gettysburg Train Station' and its immediate surroundings in 
        the Borough of Gettysburg.
            ``(2) The land and interests in land located along Plum Run 
        in Cumberland Township.''.

SEC. 2. ACQUISITION AND DISPOSAL OF LAND.

    Section 2 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 430g-5) is amended by adding at 
the end of subsection (a) the following: ``The Secretary is also 
authorized to acquire publicly owned property within the area defined 
in section 1(d)(1) by purchase, from willing sellers only, if efforts 
to acquire that property without cost have been exhausted. The 
Secretary may not acquire property within the area defined in section 
1(d) by eminent domain.''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32

PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending May 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), I, Corbin Bernsen, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: July 19, 2006 |  |  |  | /s/ Corbin Bernsen                                     
|                    |  |  |  | Corbin Bernsen                                         
|                    |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer

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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   OCT-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                                         2,828,994
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    251,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,014,265
<PP&E>                                         41,469,509
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,520,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 50,302,227
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          20,268,105
<BONDS>                                        7,699,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,500,000
<COMMON>                                       34,537
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,363,443
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   50,332,227
<SALES>                                        10,615,318
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               10,615,318
<CGS>                                          11,708,164
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  11,708,164
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             2,411,657
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,330,761)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,330,761)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,330,761)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.104)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.104)
        

</TABLE>
September 20, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

LEANDREW RAY, JR., Appellant

NO. 14-11-00984-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having 

considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court 

orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
September 4, 2003

Victor T. Weber
9416 Gold Mountain Drive
Las Vegas, Nevada  89134

      RE:   $50,000 LOAN

Dear Victor,

This letter will confirm the terms concerning the $50,000 loan made by you
("Weber") to Vertical Computer Systems, Inc. ("Vertical") and the amendment to
the loan agreement between Weber and Vertical concerning the $150,000 in loans
("$150,000 Loans") made by Weber to Vertical. Vertical and Weber hereby agree as
follows:

1. Weber shall loan Vertical the sum of $50,000 and Vertical shall issue a
promissory note (the "$50,000 Note") for a principal amount of $50,000 at
thirteen percent (13%) interest per annum payable in monthly accrued interest
payments beginning October 1, 2003, and a final payment of all principal and
remaining interest will be due by March 31, 2004.

2. The parties confirm that Vertical currently owes a total amount $163,133 in
principal, interest, and fees for the $150,000 Loans as of this date of
September 4, 2003, plus the $50,000 principal for the $50,000 Note. In
consideration of the loans made to Vertical, Vertical will pledge its interest
in the promissory note issued by Now Solutions to Vertical in the amount of
$215,000 (the "Now Note") as of this date as collateral to secure the $100,000
and $40,000 notes issued by on July 1, 2003 at 13% interest. At Weber's option
and in his sole discretion, Weber may have the entire interest of the Now Note
assigned to him. In the event Weber has the entire interest assigned to him,
then Weber shall forgive all outstanding amounts debt, including the $100,000
and $40,000 notes, and cancels these notes plus the $50,000 Note. Upon execution
of the assignment, Now's separate payment of monthly interest for the $215,000
Note shall be endorsed by Vertical to Weber so that Weber shall receive the
accrued interest payments for the $215,000 Note.

If the foregoing is acceptable, please executed this agreement in the space
provided below.


                                         Sincerely,

                                         _______________________________________
                                         Richard Wade
                                         President/CEO
                                         Vertical Computer Systems, Inc.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

___________________________________
Victor T. Weber