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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,235
<SECURITIES>                                     3,459
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,385
<ALLOWANCES>                                       825
<INVENTORY>                                     12,084<F1>
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,806
<PP&E>                                          61,835
<DEPRECIATION>                                  41,875
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  77,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           23,378
<BONDS>                                          6,609
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        46,770
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,325)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    77,018
<SALES>                                         67,685
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                77,400
<CGS>                                           41,552
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   48,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                28,878
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    80
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    153
<INCOME-TAX>                                        69
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 84
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        84
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
<FN>
<F1>INVENTORY DETAIL AT NOVEMBER 30, 1998 WAS FINISHED GOODS $6214; WORK IN
PROCESS $612; RAW MATERIALS $5258.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2857

___________________________

United States of America,

lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Vernon Williams,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant.

 ____________

Appeal from United States District Court

for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville

 ____________

Submitted: March 18, 2020

Filed: March 23, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Vernon Williams appeals the sentence the district court1imposed after he

pleaded guilty to a drug offense. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed

1The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Arkansas.
a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), challenging the substantive

reasonableness of Williams’s sentence.

Upon careful review under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, see Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007), we conclude that the district court did not

impose an unreasonable sentence. The court properly considered the factorsset forth

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and there is no indication that the court committed a clear

error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. See United States v. Salazar-Aleman,

741 F.3d 878, 881 (8th Cir. 2013) (standard of review). Further, having

independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we find

no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s motion and

affirm.

______________________________

-2-
July 31, 2010 

Mr. A. Stanley Meiburg 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region 4 

Atlanta Federal Center 6 1 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960 

Dear Mr. Meiburg: 

On May 13, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the greenhouse gas (GHG) 

tailoring rule, which addresses greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

permitting programs. The purpose of this letter is to provide the information for Alabama requested by EPA in the 

preamble for the final tailoring rule. 

ADEM has statutory and administrative authority to regulate GlIG emissions in its PSI) and Title V 

permitting programs when Gl-iG emissions became designated as regulated pollutants under the CAA. No revisions 

need to be made to regulations for this purpose. 

However, our PSD regulations will need to be revised to be consistent with EPA's tailoring rule thresholds. 

In order to accomplish this, we plan to begin the rulemaking process by August 22, 2010. The revised rules should 

be considered for adoption by the Environmental Management Commission (EMC) in the December timeframe. If 

the EMC adopts the proposed rule revisions in December, the final rules will be submitted to EPA in January 201 1. 

We have requested, and our understanding is that EPA has agreed to parallel processing for this SIP revision so that 

the revisions can become effective in the Alabama SIP at the same time they are effective in our state regulations. 

We also intend to revise our Title V regulations in a separate rulemaking action at a later date. 

We thank EPA for providing comments on draft revisions to our PSD regulations. Our understanding is that 

if we resolve these comments, there will be no obstacles to final EPA approval of this SIP revision. 

Should you require additional information, please contact me at (334) 27 1-7868. 

Sincerely, 

Ronald W. Gore, Chief 

Air Division 

cc: Beverly Banister, EPA 

Carol L. Kemker, EPA 

Blnnlngharn &an& Decatur Branch 

110 Vulcan Road 2715 Sandlin Road, S. W. 

Birmingham, AL 352044702 Decatur. AL 356031333 

(205) 942-6168 (256) 353-1713 

(205) 941-1603 (FAX) (256) 340-9359 (FAX) 

MoWte Blanch MoMleCoastal 2204 Perimeter Road 4171 Commanders Drive Mobile, AL 36615-1131 Mobile, AL 366151421 

(251) 45Ck3400 (251) 432-6533 

(251) 4792593 (FAX) (251) 432-6598 (FAX)
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the quarterly report of Tecumseh Products Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Form 10-Q"), I,
James J. Bonsall, Principal Executive 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 Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
          78o(d)); and

     (2)  the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


Dated: May 15, 2007                     BY: /s/ James J. Bonsall
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            James J. Bonsall
                                            President and
                                            Chief Operating Officer
INE5JESWAtiffill

application of the law to those facts de novo. 

### Lader v. Warden, 121 Nev. 682, 686, 120 P.3d 1164, 1166 (2005). 1

Dieudonne contended that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance by coercing him into accepting his plea agreement by "strongly pressuring" him into believing that his counts would run concurrently. The district court concluded that counsel did not pressure or coerce Dieudonne into accepting the plea and that he failed to establish deficiency or prejudice. Having reviewed the record, including counsel's testimony that he made no promises to Dieudonne that the counts would run concurrently, we conclude that counsel did not perform deficiently. Furthermore, Dieudonne did not testify during the evidentiary hearing or argue on appeal that, but for his belief that the counts would run concurrently, he would have insisted on going to trial and risked being convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Accordingly, we conclude that counsel was not ineffective. Second, Dieudonne contends that the district court erred by concluding that his guilty plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered. "On appeal from the district court's determination, we will presume that the lower court correctly assessed the validity of the

'We note that post-conviction counsel's opening brief is devoid of any reference to Nevada law, including the relevant standard of review for Dieudonne's claims of error. NRAP 28(a)(9) requires opening briefs to contain a concise statement of the applicable standard of review and citation to the relevant authorities upon which appellant relies. As counsel acknowledged in his attorney certification, failure to follow the requirements of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure may result in sanctions. See NRAP 28.2(b).

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 2-

AARKKA I rAT MS= plea, and we will not reverse the lower court's determination absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Bryant v. State, 102 Nev. 268, 272, 721 P.2d 364, 368 (1986), limited on other grounds by Smith v. State, 110 Nev. 1009, 1010 n.1, 879 P.2d 60, 61 n.1 (1994); see also State v. Freese, 116 Nev. 1097, 1106, 13 P.3d 442, 448 (2000). Having reviewed the entire record and the totality of the facts and circumstances surrounding the plea, including the district court's thorough plea canvass and Dieudonne's testimony that he knew the judge had the discretion to sentence him to consecutive counts and life in prison, we conclude that the district court correctly assessed the validity of Dieudonne's plea and did not abuse its discretion.

Having considered Dieudonne's contentions and concluded that the district court did not err by denying his post-conviction petition,

we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge Keith C. Brower Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 3
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DANIEL RAY, AKA Popeye, AKA Daniel 

T. Ray, AKA Daniel Thomas Ray, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50115 

D.C. No. 5:17-cr-00159-PA-2 

Central District of California, 

Riverside 

ORDER

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

PATRICK JOHN BACON, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18-50120 

D.C. No. 5:17-cr-00159-PA-1 

.

THOMAS, Chief Judge:

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that 

United States v. Bacon, No. 18-50120, be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule 

of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion 

is vacated. The memorandum disposition is vacated with respect to United States 

FILED

SEP 4 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

v. Bacon, No. 18-50120. The mandate remains in effect with respect to United 

States v. Ray, No. 18-50115.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 271 ) ll-K - fl ) Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:58 AM Sheet 271 of 325P. 2

II-K-(A)- 3
DOCUMENTATIO N

O F TH E INTERACTIVE PL/ 1 COMPUTE RPROGRA M T O SUBMI T IFCA

M BACKGROUN DBATC H JOBS . EEA . Novembe r 19 , 1981 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUNDI

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(A)-3
Bulk Liquid Container (BLC) Tank Cleaning Procedures
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                                         
<ARTICLE>                      5                    
<LEGEND>                                                       
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                                                      
<RESTATED>                                                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                     1,000    
                                                               
<S>                                        <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS                 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-27-1995          
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-26-1994           
<CASH>                                          37,152            
<SECURITIES>                                         0            
<RECEIVABLES>                                  258,953            
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,597             
<INVENTORY>                                    207,278             
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               556,912             
<PP&E>                                         604,748             
<DEPRECIATION>                                 380,633             
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,052,317             
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          265,584             
<BONDS>                                        105,638             
<COMMON>                                       199,523             
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0             
<PREFERRED>                                          0             
<OTHER-SE>                                     336,212             
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,052,317             
<SALES>                                              0             
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               683,507             
<CGS>                                                0             
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  362,499             
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0             
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0             
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,380             
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 48,065             
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,083             
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,982             
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0             
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0             
<CHANGES>                                            0             
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,982             
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.11          
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.11             
                                                               

</TABLE>
#### LAMBERT v. HOUSTON FIRE & CAS. INS. CO.

No. 4842.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

Sept. 11, 1952.

• Houston Thompson, Silsbee, for appellant.

Cecil, Keith & Mehaffy, Beaumont, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

 We have heretofore granted ap-pellee's motion to strike the statement of facts because of a noncompliance with T.R.C.P. 381, and appellant has moved for a rehearing, alleging two grounds, namely, (1) the agreement of counsel approving the statement of facts, which states that the document “may be filed as such among the papers of the cause” and (2) the order of the trial court approving the statement of facts and ordering it filed. The statement of facts was filed in the trial court on the last day of the period within which it might have been filed in this court, and it was also filed in this court on that day. Both the trial court’s order and the agreement of counsel were made after the fifty days prescribed j>y T.R.C.P. 381 but, of course, within the sixty days prescribed by T.R.C.P. 386, counting the extension effected by T.R.C.P. 4. Both grounds of the motion for rehearing are sustained and the appellee’s motion to strike the statement of facts is denied. The agreement of counsel must be given the effect of waiving the failure to file the statement of facts in the trial *406court within the fifty days prescribed by T.R.C.P. 381. Concerning waiver, see: Brown v. Orange County, 48 Tex.Civ.App. 470, 107 S.W. 607; Tunstill v. Scott, Tex. Civ.App., 144 S.W.2d 604; Vela v. Southland Life Insurance Co., Tex.Civ.App., 212 S.W.2d 210, rev. on other grounds, 147 Tex. 478, 217 S.W.2d 660. But regardless of waiver, the trial court had power to extend the time for filing the statement of facts when the order of approval was made, and the terms of that order effected such an extension. See: Luse v. Gibson, 119 Tex. 15, 23 S.W.2d 328; White v. Taylor, Tex.Com.App., 36 S.W.2d 181; Rutherford v. Dallas Joint Stock Land Bank, Tex.Civ.App., 91 S.W.2d 1182; Brooking v. Ball, Tex.Civ.App., 104 S.W.2d 884; Herman v. Rountree, Tex. Civ.App., 162 S.W.2d 144; Seaboard Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Halbert, Tex.Civ. App., 173 S.W.2d 180. And see the note of the advisory committee following T.R. C.P. 381.

Appellee is given 30 days to file a brief on the merits of the appeal, and the cause is set down for oral argument on October 16, 1952.
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 25, 2000 / Notices 63919

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

Privacy Act of 1974, as Amended;

System of Records

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service,

Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of alterations to an

existing Privacy Act system of records.

SUMMARY: The Treasury Department,

Internal Revenue Service, gives notice of

proposed alterations to Treasury/IRS

00.333—Third Party Contact Records,

which is subject to the Privacy Act of

1974, 5 U.S.C. 552A, as amended.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 24, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Harry Manaka, National Director,

Collection Field Operations, Room

7238, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20224. Telephone

number (202) 622–5110.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Internal Revenue Service is removing

‘‘fact of reprisal determination records’’

from the system of records Treasury/IRS

00.333—Third Party Contact Records.

The reprisal determination records will

be included in the ‘‘Categories of

records’’ for the proposed new system of

records entitled ‘‘Third Party Contact

Reprisal Records—Treasury/IRS

00.334.’’ The change will allow the IRS

to withhold the information that there

was a reprisal determination because

there is a proposed (k)(2) exemption for

the Third Party Contact Reprisal

Records. Withholding such information

will protect the third party contact and

others from situations where the

taxpayer could initiate reprisal by

guessing the identity of the third party

contact or incorrectly identifying

somebody the taxpayer believes was the

third party contact. Also, under the

heading ‘‘Retrievability,’’ we are

clarifying that records may be retrieved

by taxpayer name control.

The system notice was last published

in its entirety in the Federal Register,

Vol. 64, page 32095, on June 15, 1999.

The changes to the system of records are

not within the purview of subsection (r)

of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended,

which requires the submission of a new

or altered system report. For the reasons

set forth in this preamble, the IRS

proposes to amend its system of records

Treasury/IRS 00.333 as set forth below.

Dated: August 29, 2000.

W. Earl Wright, Jr.,

Chief Management and Administrative

Programs Officer.

Treasury/IRS 00.333

SYSTEM NAME:

Third Party Contact Records—

Treasury/IRS.

* * * * *

CATEGORIES OF RECORDS IN THE SYSTEM:

Description of Change: Delete ‘‘fact of

reprisal determination’’.

* * * * *

RETRIEVABILITY: * * *

Description of Change: After ‘‘By

taxpayer identification number (social

security number or employer

identification number)’’ insert the

following: ‘‘and taxpayer name control.’’

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–27415 Filed 10–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–01–P
Exhibit 99.6





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 YM BioSciences Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the year ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Dr. Nicholas Glover, President & Chief Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:




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




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




By:
/s/ Dr. Nicholas GloverDr. Nicholas GloverPresident & Chief Executive Officer





September 22, 2011
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF 

DEBORAH LAUFER’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Before the Court is Defendant’s Mann Hospitality, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff’s Original Complaint. Having reviewed the motion, the Court finds that it should 

be and is hereby GRANTED. This case is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Signed this the day of , 2020. 

HONORABLE JAMES R. NOWLIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DEBORAH LAUFER, §

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § Case No. 1:20-cv-00620-JRN

§

MANN HOSPITALITY, LLC §

Defendant. §

Case 1:20-cv-00620-JRN Document 8-4 Filed 08/20/20 Page 1 of 1
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 08 - 0288 Directorate ID : 20 06 - SW - 25 - AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Model 214B, 214B - 1, 214ST Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 12 Model 214B/B - 1 and 24 Model 214ST Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of the spindle and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter . Costs : Parts per Helicopter $39,806 for both spindles for a Model 214B or 214B - 1 $40,802 for both spindles for a Model 214ST Labor per Helicopter ( 1 work- hour x $ 8 5 /workhour for the recordkeeping ) (24 work - hour x $85/work hour for the replacement) $ 85 $ 2,040 Other (Explain) Total Cost per Helicopter (recordkeepi ng & replacement) $41,931 for a Model 214B or 214B - 1 $42,927 for a Model 214ST Total US Fleet Cost $3,060 for recordkeeping Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory

Polici es 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 : Martin Crane