alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In re Francesco SCARDINO and Anne C. Scardino, Individually and jointly. FREEDOM VALLEY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN (formerly “Conshohocken Federal Savings and Loan”) and Hamilton Bank (formerly “National Central Bank”), Plaintiffs, v. Francis J. ALBANI, individually and t/a “DMA Investments, Inc.” and Francesco Scardino and Anne C. Scardino, Defendants.

Bankruptcy No. 80-00573.

Adv. No. 81-0736.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E. D. Pennsylvania.

Feb. 18, 1982.

W. Richard Gentry, West Chester, Pa., for plaintiff.

Joseph S. U. Bodoff, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.

OPINION

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge.

The Petition of DMA Investments, Inc. requests that we set aside the sheriff’s sale of certain real property owned by the debtors-defendants. For reasons hereinafter given, we will dismiss the petition and sustain the sale.1

The debtor-defendants, Francesco and Anne Scardino (hereinafter “debtors”), filed a petition under Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code on March 20, 1980. Upon motion of the first lienholder, Freedom Valley Federal Savings and Loan (hereinafter “Freedom Valley”), the automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362 was modified to allow real property owned by the debtors to be sold at sheriff’s sale. The second lienholder, Hamilton Bank was the only bidder at the sále and it acquired the property for $70,000. The petitioners, DMA Investments, Inc. (hereinafter “DMA”), had obtained assignment on the third lien position of Harold E. Trego.

DMA argues that the sheriff’s sale should be set aside because the sale price of $70,000 was grossly inadequate and there was an irregularity in the sale in that Hamilton Bank agreed to purchase a junior lien holder’s claim in exchange for their agreement not to bid. The power of the Court to set aside a sheriff’s sale is discretionary. We are guided by the principles of Pennsylvania law which require evidence of fraud or highly suspicious circumstances in order to justify, setting aside a sale. *Farmer’s Trust Company v. Murray,*2 D. & C.3d 41 (1975).

*738In the case at bar, there was no proof that the Bank’s agreement with the junior lienors was fraudulent as to DMA. Nor was DMA deterred from bidding at the sale by the agreement. Under these circumstances, the disparity between the sales price of $70,000 and the appraised value of $120,000 is not, of itself, sufficient reason to overturn the sale. *Union National Bank of Reading v. DeLong Furniture Corporation,*344 Pa. 583, 26 A.2d 440 (1942).

For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition of DMA and the debtor-defendants and sustain the validity of the sale.

1

. This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law as required by Rule 752 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Ex parte Patrick Hawthorne, * From the 259th District Court

 of Jones County

Trial Court No. 024014.

No. 11-16-00337-CR * December 31, 2018

 * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, S.C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Gray, C.J., sitting by assignment, 

and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by 

assignment)

 (Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there 

is no error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s 

opinion, the order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5528-5529]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01948]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

National Nuclear Security Administration


Defense Programs Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 
Office of Defense Programs.

ACTION: Notice of Closed Meeting.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces a closed meeting of the Defense Programs 
Advisory Committee (DPAC). The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 
92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be 
announced in the Federal Register. Due to national security 
considerations, under section 10(d) of the Act and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), 
the meeting will be closed to the public and matters to be discussed 
are exempt from public disclosure under Executive Order 13526 and the 
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. 2161 and 2162, as amended.

DATES: February 23, 2015, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and February 24, 
2014, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 7000 East Avenue, 
Livermore, CA 94550.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Loretta Martin, Office of RDT&E (NA-
113), National Nuclear Security Administration, U.S. Department of 
Energy, 1000 Independence Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
7996.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The DPAC provides advice and recommendations to the

[[Page 5529]]

Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs on the stewardship and 
maintenance of the Nation's nuclear deterrent.
    Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of this meeting of the Defense 
Programs Advisory Committee is to discuss topics and provide advice and 
guidance with respect to the National Nuclear Security Administration 
stockpile stewardship and stockpile maintenance programs.
    Type of Meeting: In the interest of national security, the meeting 
will be closed to the public. The Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. App. 2, section 10(d), and the Federal Advisory Committee 
Management Regulation, 41 CFR 102-3.155, incorporate by reference the 
Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b, which, at 552b(c)(1) and 
(c)(3) permits closure of meetings where restricted data or other 
classified matters will be discussed. Such data and matters will be 
discussed in each session.
    Tentative Agenda: Day 1--Welcome, Topic 1, Topic 2. Day 2--Topic 2 
continued, Topic 3.
    Public Participation: There will be no public participation in this 
closed meeting. Those wishing to provide written comments or statements 
to the Committee are invited to send them to Loretta Martin at the 
address listed above.
    Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will not be available.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 27, 2015.
LaTanya R. Butler,
Deputy Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-01948 Filed 1-30-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
EXHIBIT 99.4





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS





To the Participants of the Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee Share
Purchase Plan and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Accenture Ltd:





In our opinion, the
accompanying statement of financial condition and the related statement of operations and changes in plan equity present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Accenture Ltd 2001 Employee Share Purchase Plan (the
Plan) at August 31, 2001, and the changes in its financial status for the period since June 5, 2001 (inception) through August 31, 2001 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Plans management; our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit of these statements in accordance with auditing standards
generally accepted in the United States of America, which require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test
basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that
our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.





/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


November 27, 2001


Chicago, Illinois
Staley, Okada & Partners			Suite 400 - 889 West Pender Street
Chartered Accountants				      Vancouver, BC Canada V6C 3B2
								  Tel 604 694-6070
								  Fax 604-585-8377
							      info@staleyokada.com
							       www.staleyokada.com

14 May 2004


      				CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the inclusion in this Form 10-KSB of Neutron Enterprises, Inc. of
our report dated May 7, 2004, on our audit of the financial statements of
Neutron Enterprises, Inc. as of December 31, 2003 and for the year then ended.


/s/ Staley, Okada & Partners

STALEY, OKADA & PARTNERS


per D. Laracque, CA, CFP, CPA (Oregon)







Staley Okada & Partners, with offices in Vancouver and Surrey, is a Member of
MSI, a Network of Independent Professional Firms * A Member of the INstitute of
Chartered Accountants of British Columbia
A Partnership if Incorporated Professionals; L.M. Okada, Ltd., C.N. Chander,
Ltd., J.M. Bhegirath, Ltd., L.W.D. Vickars, Ltd., G.S. Traher, Inc., D. Larocque
Ltd.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC StaffGeneric  Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants  (NUREG-1437)

# Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Regarding License Renewal of Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 60)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG-1437, Supplement 60, Draft Report for Comment (PDF – 4.40 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** October 2023**Date Published:** October 2023

Office of Nuclear Material Safety and SafeguardsU.S. Nuclear Regulatory CommissionWashington, DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) prepared this supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) in response to Vistra Operations Company, LLC and Luminant's application to renew the operating license for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (Comanche Peak), Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years. Luminant is a subsidiary of Vistra Operations Company, LLC. This SEIS evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives considered include: (1) New Nuclear (Small Modular Reactors), (2) Natural Gas-fired Combined-Cycle, (3) Combination Solar Photovoltaic, Onshore Wind, and New Nuclear, and (4) no renewal of the operating licenses (the no-action alternative). The NRC staff's preliminary recommendation is that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal (LR) for Comanche Peak are not so great that preserving the option of LR for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. The NRC staff based its recommendation on the following factors:
        - the analysis and findings in NUREG–1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants
        - the environmental report submitted by the applicant
        - the NRC staff's consultation with Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies
        - independent environmental review
        - the consideration of public comments

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, March 19, 2024
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 Annual Report of Omega Ventures, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lawrence Hartman, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, hereby 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; and

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




Dated: April 14, 2004              /s/ Lawrence Hartman
                                   ------------------------------------
                                   Lawrence Hartman, Chief Executive
                                   Officer  and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1858 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1858

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 16, 2017

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 4514 Williamson Trail in Liberty, Pennsylvania, as the ``Staff 
               Sergeant Ryan Scott Ostrom Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. STAFF SERGEANT RYAN SCOTT OSTROM POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 4514 Williamson Trail in Liberty, Pennsylvania, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Staff Sergeant Ryan Scott Ostrom Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Staff 
Sergeant Ryan Scott Ostrom Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 10, 2017.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
EXHIBIT 13.2



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 Annual Report of International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended May 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael W. Kinley, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



3.

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

4.

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



Date:  November 30, 2007



/s/ Michael W. Kinley

Michael W. Kinley
  Chief Financial Officer
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsBrochures Prepared by NRC Staff

# Making Our Business Your Business (NUREG/BR-0277, Rev. 2)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG BR-0277, Rev. 2 (PDF - 268.35 KB)  |  Spanish version (PDF - 2.80 MB) 

## Publication Information

**Date Published:**July 2008 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

## Abstract

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) supports small business public policies and is committed to increasing contracting opportunities for small businesses, including:
        - Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDB)
        - Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSB)
        - Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (VOSB)
        - Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSB)
        - Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Concerns

This brochure focuses on opportunities for small businesses to contract with the NRC, and includes the following topics:
        - What the NRC Buys
        - How the NRC Awards Contracts
        - NRC Notices of Contracts, Opportunities, and Awards
        - Office of Small Business and Civil Rights as the Advocate for Small Business

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Order entered July 26, 2017

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-00448-CV

CECILIA KONTOH AND MERCY QUACHIE, Appellants

V.

HELENA SAFO, INDIVIDUALLY AS SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF ADELLE SAFO,

TEDDY SAFO, AND MYRA SAFO TRUSTS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 298th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-07030

ORDER

Before the Court is appellants’ July 25, 2017 motion to extend time to file appellants’ 

brief. We GRANT appellants’ motion and ORDER the brief filed on or before September 13, 

2017. 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
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 Annual Report of Galaxy Energy Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Marc E. Bruner, 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:

(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.


/s/ MARC E. BRUNER
--------------------------------------------
Marc E. Bruner
President (Chief Executive Officer)
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-30650 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus BRANDY Z. ROGERS, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 6:11-CR-233-1

Before SMITH, PRADO, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *

Brandy Ro g e rs p leaded guilty of embezzlement of bank f unds and was sentenced within the gu i deline r ange to twenty-seven months of imprisonment. She U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D March 8, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-30650 Document: 00512168823 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/08/2013No. 12-30650

appeals, arguing that the sentence is substantively unreasonable because the district court failed t o take into account that s he is t he primary caregiver for her two sons, both of whom have special m e d i c a l needs, and b ecause a withinguideline sentence is not necessary to deter her o r protect t h e p ublic from further criminal c onduct. She also urges that t he sentence is unreasonable in light of the r e stitution o rder, because she is unable to m ake restitution while incarcerated. “A discretionary sentence i mposed within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United States v. Campos-Maldonado , 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir. 2008). “The presumption is rebutted only upon a showing that t he sentenc e does not a ccount for a factor that should receive significant weight, it gives significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, o r it represents a clear error of judgment in balancing sentencing factors.” United States

v. Cooks , 589 F .3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009). M ere disagreement with the propriety of the sentence or the weight given to the § 3553(a) factors is not enough to

r eb ut the presumption of reasonableness t hat attaches to a within-gu i d e l i n e s e n tence. See United States v. Ruiz , 621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010). The district c ourt was aware of the mitigating factors pointed t o by Rogers but gave more w eight to the seriousness of the offense, particularly i t s nature and characteristics. R ogers has failed to rebut the presumption of reasonableness t hat is accorded to her within-guideline s entence. See Cooks , 589 F.3d at 186; Ruiz , 621 F.3d at 398. The judgment of sentence is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-30650 Document: 00512168823 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/08/2013
Exhibit 8



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the inclusion in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of our audit report dated August 13, 2010 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of International Tower Hill Mines Ltd. (the Company) for each of years in the three year period ended May 31, 2010 and to the incorporation by reference of this Annual Report on Form 40-F, together with our audit report contained herein, in the Companys Form S-8 Registration Statement (SEC File No. 333-158533).



/s/ MacKay LLP

Chartered Accountants
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
August 27, 2010
#### WILLIAM W. TAYLOR *against*C. T. McMURRAY AND SAMUEL H. MASON.

A court of equity is governed by the statutes of limitations and presumptions, in the saíno manner that a court of law is; where, therefore, a bill of sale of a slave, not under seal, contained a false warranty of soundness, and a bill was filed by the purchaser to restrain the collection of the purchase-money, three years had elapsed between the discovery of the unsoundness and the filing of the bill, it was *Held*that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Martin county.

The bill is filed to enjoin the collection of a certain note, and praying to have it surrendered.

*358The facts are these: On the 28th of April, 1854, the plaintiff purchased a negro woman and child of the defendant, McMur-ray; at the time of his purchase, plaintiff received a bill of sale for said slaves, warranting them to be “sound and healthy.” Some three weeks after the sale, plaintiff discovered that the woman had a cancer on her breast, which was pronounced incurable by physicians, and of which she ultimately died.— Plaintiff gave his note for $600, the price of the woman and her child; plaintiff soon afterwards paid $300 on the note, which was credited, and the note assigned to the defendant, S. II. Mason, who brought suit on it in the Superior Court of Person county. The bill prays to have the collection of the note enjoined, and the note itself surrendered. The bill was filed on the 16th of January, 1858, more than three years from the discovery of the unsoundness. Cause set for hearing on bill, answers, exhibits and proofs, and sent to this Court.

*Winston, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

Hodman, for the defendant.

MaNly, J.

Relief in this case is barred by the statute of limitations, and we deem it unnecessary, therefore, to consider or discuss the merits of the complaint.

The complaint is based upon a false warranty, contained in a bill of sale for slaves between the parties, not under seal, entered into 28th July, 1854. Its falsity was discovered within seven weeks from the date of the instrument. And this bill, to enjoin the collection of the purchase-money, and for relief, was filed the 16th of January, 1858.

It is too late. A court of equity is governed by the statutes of limitations and presumptions in the same way that a court of law is. An action of assumpsit, or on the case in tort, upon this warranty, was barred in three years from the date of the bill of sale. So, we hold a bill in equity for relief, based upon it, is barred by that lapse of time, in analogy to the statute.

The bill must be dismissed at the costs of the complainant.

Pee CueiaMj Bill dismissed.