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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
audited financial statements of Quality Stores, Inc. at and for the period ended
January 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 NOV-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         5,144
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,938
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (386)
<INVENTORY>                                    234,868
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               249,830
<PP&E>                                         54,754
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (9,140)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 439,606
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          157,520
<BONDS>                                        146,843
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     131,242
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   439,606
<SALES>                                        146,147
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               146,147
<CGS>                                          103,521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               34,601
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               113
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             4,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,953
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,468
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,485
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,485
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 4, 2009 

Order 

 

November 4, 2009 

136956(48) 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 136956 

v COA: 278189 

St. Joseph CC: 06-013718-FC 

LARRY EUGENE WILCOX, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellee for extension to 

October 26, 2009 of the time for filing their brief on appeal is considered and it is 

GRANTED.
## Proposed Auke Bay Route - Westerly Wind = Minimum Autorotation Glide Distance AS-350 at 2,000ft AGL w/ No Wind = Autorotation Glide Distance Given a 30kt Westerly Wind at 1700ft/min rate of descent from 2,000ft AGL with a 65kt glide speed =Proposed Landing Site 

# N

.6903 NM 1.282 NM 1.874 NM 30kt Wind - Due West
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 8 

Providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a presentation from 

the Comptroller General of the United States regarding the audited 

financial statement of the executive branch. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 6, 2017 

Mr. RENACCI (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. O’ROURKE, Mr. COOPER, Mr. 

BARTON, Mr. DAVIDSON, Ms. STEFANIK, Mr. LIPINSKI, Miss RICE of 

New York, Mr. HUIZENGA, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. SANFORD, Mr. COSTELLO

of Pennsylvania, Mr. BYRNE, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BUCSHON, Mr. 

WESTERMAN, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. KILMER, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WEBSTER

of Florida, Mr. JOYCE of Ohio, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. 

SENSENBRENNER, Mr. AMODEI, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. JOHNSON

of Ohio, Mr. PETERS, Mr. MOULTON, Mr. LAHOOD, Mr. BARLETTA, Mr. 

BISHOP of Michigan, Mr. VALADAO, and Mr. MARINO) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Providing for a joint session of Congress to receive a presentation from the Comptroller General of the United States 

regarding the audited financial statement of the executive 

branch. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS

2 

•HCON 8 IH 

1 SECTION 1. ANNUAL JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS TO RE2 CEIVE A PRESENTATION BY THE COMP3 TROLLER GENERAL. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 45 days (excluding 

5 Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays) after the date on which 

6 the Secretary of the Treasury submits to Congress the au7 dited financial statement required under paragraph (1) of 

8 section 331(e) of title 31, United States Code, on a date 

9 agreed upon by Congress and the Comptroller General of 

10 the United States, the two Houses of Congress shall as11 semble in the Hall of the House of Representatives to re12 ceive a presentation from the Comptroller General review13 ing the findings of the audit required under paragraph (2) 

14 of such section and providing, with respect to the informa15 tion included by the Secretary in the report accompanying 

16 such audited financial statement, an analysis of the finan17 cial position and condition of the Federal Government, in18 cluding financial measures (such as the net operating cost, 

19 income, budget deficits, or budget surpluses) and sustain20 ability measures (such as the long-term fiscal projection 

21 or social insurance projection) described in such report. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The requirement under sub23 section (a) shall apply with respect to any audited finan24 cial statement submitted on or after the date of the enact25 ment of this resolution. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with BILLS
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 report of Consolidated Water Co. Ltd. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick W.
McTaggart, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 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.


Date:
      May 11, 2009
                By:
                /s/ Frederick W.
      McTaggartFrederick
      W. McTaggartChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)
FEDERAL REGISTER: 47 FR 39678 (September 9, 1982)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)

30 CFR Parts 840, 842, 843, and 845

Permanent Regulatory Program Modifications; 

Inspection and Enforcement; Civil Penalty Assessments

ACTION: Correction 

In FR Doc. 82-21917 beginning on page 35620 in the issue of Monday, August 16, 1982, make the following correction. 

 On page 35627, first column, the fifth line from the bottom of the page now reading "authority is necessary for 

effective" should have read "authority chooses not to participate, or where OSM determines that a Federal inspection 

without participation by the State regulatory authority is necessary for effective". 

BILLING CODE 1505-01-M
EXHIBIT
32.2





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 Alaska Airlines, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Glenn
S. Johnson, 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:





(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.





By
            /s/    GLENN S. JOHNSONGlenn
      S. JohnsonChief
      Financial Officer





February
24, 2010
#### Anonymous.

.Sheriff’s Retura — Authentication.*—A sheriff's return of the service of a decree nisi, or of any paper not directed to him in his official capacity, ought to be authenticated by affidavit.

*

Sheriff’s Return — Authentication.—In Barksdale v. Neal. 16 Gratt. 317. It is said: "There is a manifest difference between a return upon a summons and a return upon a notice. A summons is directed to an officer, and contains a mandate to which his return of 'executed' is a response that the thing commanded has been done. A notice is not directed to any officer, but to the party on whom it is to be served. It contains no mandate, and therefore a return oí ‘executed,’ simply, is no response, but unmeaning. The manner of service, whether by an officer or another person, must be stated; the only difference being, that the simple statement of an officer is sufficient, while the statement of another person must be upon oath. This difference the Code makes, chap. 187, § 1. It did not formerly exist, but the statement was required to be on oath, whether made by an officer on another person. And the reason was. that the officer, in serving a notice, did not act as an officer but as any other person. Hien. *& Munf.*206.”

In several cases, at the last term, decrees nisi were entered up against the defendants for want of an appearance and answer: copies of which decrees were returned served by deputy sheriffs, (without affidavit of the service,) and were made the ground of a •motion for final decrees. The only question was, as to the sufficiency of the notice.

PER CURIAM.

In all cases where a sheriff is bound to act in his official capacity, his return should be considered as evidence of the act unless the contrary be shewn ; but when •he is called on to do that which any other person may do, and which he is not by virtue of his office bound to do, although he may do it, he does it as any other individual — not as an officer : and therefore his return should not be regarded as any better evidence that the act has been performed by him, than a like return should be, if made by a private individual. In this case, if the copy of the decree had been served by a private individual, he would have to prove it, by his affidavit; and so must the sheriff, — because he acted in this case as an individual, and not as sheriff : he could not be punished for a false return of that which was not directed to him, and which he was of course not bound to receive; and, if he did receive it, he found in it no particular directions to him more than to any one else. Whether, therefore, he or any other individual should return it, it must be accompanied by an affidavit.

Motion for a final decree, at present, denied ; and the bar requested to take notice that the practice, upon this point, is now settled. _ _
Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission
Commission Monthly Case Activity for July 2015



1.
Cases Pending Beginning of Month 
31




2.
Cases Added to Docket 

Quick Transport of Arkansas, LLC
No. 14-0844
Direction for Review on July 1, 2015

Integra Health Management, Inc.
No. 13-1124
Direction for Review on July 21, 2015


2

3.
Cases Subtracted From Docket



0
4.
Total Cases Pending End of Month
33
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
SUNBEAM CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 28, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-28-1997
<CASH>                                         52,378
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  313,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                   17,463
<INVENTORY>                                    256,180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               658,005
<PP&E>                                         345,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                 104,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,120,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          198,099
<BONDS>                                        194,580
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       900
<OTHER-SE>                                     531,037
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,120,284
<SALES>                                        1,168,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,168,182
<CGS>                                          837,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  837,683
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                189,280
<INCOME-TAX>                                   66,152
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            123,128
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (13,713)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   109,415
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.25
        


</TABLE>
#### Peete’s Executors *v.*Webb’s administrators.

Bond given in 1775, conditioned for the payment of one hundred pounds Virginia money, to be paid in Proc, at thirty-three and one third *per cent.*The jury gave a verdict for as much of the present currency as was equivalent to one hundred pounds Virginia money. *Fer Curiam*—This is no more than a bond for the payment of one hundred and thirty-three pounds six shillings and eight pence of the currency of this country. 100Í. Virginia money to be paid in Proc. at thirty-three and a third *per cent,*is a currency borní. So they set aside the verdict and granted a new trial: but the jury at the next term, gave the same verdict as the former jury gave —which was surely right — and *Davie*did not move again for a new trial.
Exhibit 23(1)
                                                                  -------------

               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-11879) pertaining to the 1985 Stock Option Plan of American Biltrite
Inc. and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-77318) pertaining to the
1993 Stock Award and Incentive Plan of American Biltrite Inc. of our report
dated March 4, 1998, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and
schedule of American Biltrite Inc. and subsidiaries included in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1997.


                                                     ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
March 23, 1998


                                       62
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Terri H. Petruska

Page 1 of 2

COALEX STATE INQUIRY REPORT - 57

October 8, 1985

Steve K. Wood, Assistant Director

Division of Surface Mining

Department of Health & Environment

305 W. Springdale Avenue

Knoxville, Tennessee 37917

TOPIC: STATE REGULATORY PROGRAM/"APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS"

INQUIRY: SMCRA Sec. 510(b)(5) contains special provision for alluvial valley floors west of 

the one-hundredth meridian west longitude. The question is whether Tennessee needs to include 

a provision for alluvial valleys in proposed state regulations, even though they would not apply 

to mining within the state. Search state regulatory programs to see if other eastern states included 

provisions with respect to alluvial valleys.

SEARCH RESULTS: 30 CFR Sec. 732.15(b)(1) under the criteria for approval or disapproval 

of state programs, requires that the state program includes provisions to "implement, administer 

and enforce all applicable requirements consistent with Subchapter K of the federal regulatory 

program.

When the final regulations were promulgated in 1979, the word "applicable" was added to this 

section in response to a commenters suggestion that otherwise states would be required to adopt 

"irrelevant and inapplicable standards".

The preamble to the 1979 discussion of Sec. 732.15(b)(1) states:

"Addition of the word 'applicable' will in no way relieve a state from its obligations to meet the 

intended goals of the Act. Inclusion of the word applicable' relieves the states from its 

compliance responsibilities only if the state can demonstrate that there is no situation within the 

state which would be covered by the Act and regulations." (44 FR 14962 (MARCH 13, 1979))

With respect to alluvial valleys, the preamble discussion specifically states that "the special 

protections offered alluvial valley floors are only applicable west of the one-hundredth meridian 

and therefore need not be included in programs submitted by states east of the meridian." (Id.)

A COALEX search of state regulatory programs identified pertinent sections with regard to 

alluvial valleys under western programs, such as those of Colorado, New Mexico, Texas, and 

North Dakota. The phrase "alluvial valleys", however, was not found to appear among most of 

the eastern regulatory programs including Kentucky, Maryland, Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana 

and Pennsylvania.
OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT

U.S. Department of the Interior

Search conducted by: Terri H. Petruska

Page 2 of 2

ATTACHMENT

44 FR 14961-14965 (MARCH 13, 1979). 1979 Preamble discussion of 30 CFR Sec. 732.15, 

Criteria for approval or disapproval of state programs.
#### WILLIAM COX *vs.*WILLIAM C. BUIE.

In a proceeding, under our Statute, to recover damages for overflowing land’ by a mill pond, it is not necessary that a copy of the petition should be served-' on the' defendant, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to give the defendant-ten days notice, in writing, of his intention to-file the petition.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Davidson-County, at the Fall Term,. 1850, his Honor Judge Manly presiding.

This is a petition for damages for overflowing land by a mill pond. It was filed at May County Court, 1849, which-was on the second Monday. On the first day of the month, more than ten days previous to the term, the petitionergave-the defendant notice, in writing,, of his intention to file the petition at the next Term ; arid on the ?th day of the month, the plaintiff served the defendant with a copy of the petition. At May Term the defendant put in an answer, set. ting forth several grounds on which he claimed the right to erect his mill and overflow the plaintiff’s land, and denying the plaintiff’s right to damages. It further stated the facts as to the serving of the notice and copy of the petition,, and insisted, that the copy ought not to have been served until after the County Court, and that for that reason the-petition ought not to be entertained, but dismissed. The County Court, nevertheless, ordered a jury, and damages were assessed and judgment rendered, and the defendant appealed. In the Superior Court, the defendant renewed the objection, that the suit was not properly constituted,,and prayed the Court to dismiss it. But the Court refused, and-after a trial at bar. and judgment for the damages assessed,, the defendant again appealed..

*140No counsel for the plaintiff.

*Mendenhall,*for the defendant.

Ruffin, C. J.

If the objection were open alter a full defence on the merits, it would not avail the defendant; for there is nothing in it! The Statute does not provide for or intend that a copy of the petition should be served. The purpose was to give a summary remedy on motion at the same Term at which the petition was filed. But to prevent surprise, it requires the notice in writing of the intention to file the petition. That was just the course in the Court of Chancery, before the Statute required the master to send a copy of the bill with the subpoena. Before that, the plaintiff" sued out his subpoena, often before his bill was filed ; and the defendant, being served with the process, bought the bill for himself, if he wished one. In respect to petitions of this kind, we believe a practice has grown up of serving a copy of the petition, in order to obviate possible objections for omissions in the notice. Though unnecessary, it may thus be convenient tq the petitioner to serve the copy. That is at his own expense, and can by no possibility do any wrong to the defendant.

Per. Curiam. Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 4.1


 


Advisors Asset Management, Inc.

18925 Base Camp Road

Monument, Colorado 80132


October 14, 2020


 


Advisors Disciplined Trust 2044


c/o The Bank of New York Mellon, as Trustee


BNY Atlantic Terminal


2 Hanson Place, 12th Floor


Brooklyn, New York 11217


 


Re: Advisors Disciplined Trust 2044 (the “Fund”)


Ladies and Gentlemen:


We have examined
the Registration Statement File No. 333-248585 for the above captioned Fund. We hereby consent to the use in the Registration Statement
of the references to Advisors Asset Management, Inc. as evaluator.


You are hereby authorized
to file a copy of this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


 


 


	 	Very truly yours,
	 	 	 
	 	Advisors Asset Management, Inc.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By	/s/ ALEX R. MEITZNER
	 	 	Alex R. Meitzner
	 	 	Senior Vice President