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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                           27,271
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                          27,271
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                  14,051
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,322
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                         15,000
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                        3,204
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                             18,204
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      1
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                        26,522
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                          100,000
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                          100,000
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                      (2,509)
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                              0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                             0
<NET-ASSETS>                                    23,118
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                                    0
<INTEREST-INCOME>                                  456
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                                   2,966
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          2,509
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                             0
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                            0
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                          (2,509)
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                              895
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                          0
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                          41,297
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                            2,591
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   3
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                                  2,966
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                            11,572
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                             0.25
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                (25.09)
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                              0
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                              8.95
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                             231.18
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                  0.256


</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
   In
connection with the annual report on Form 10-Q of Sinoenergy Corporation (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Bo Huang, the
Chief Executive Officer, and I, Shiao Ming Sheng, the Chief Financial Officer,
of the Company, do hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted
pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
and belief 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.
  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.
  The foregoing certification is being
furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and
is not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.
   February
23, 2009
   /s/ Bo Huang
 Bo
Huang
 Chief
Executive Officer
 
 
 /s/ Shiao Ming
Sheng
 Shiao
Ming Sheng
 Chief
Financial Officer
EPA SANITIZED Page 1 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 2 of 6
 

 

EPA SANITIZED Page 3 of 6
 

EPA SANITIZED Page 4 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 5 of 6
EPA SANITIZED Page 6 of 6
|   | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| /s/ Jonathan Lewis                            |
|----------------------------------------------------|
| Jonathan Lewis, M.D., Ph.D.Chief Executive Officer |
| (Principal Executive Officer)                      |

| /s/ Richard E. Bagley                                                      |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Richard E. BagleyPresident, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)                                    |

----
No. 1042.

#### Verner *v.*Johns.

April Term, 1881.

*Y.*sold to A. *&*B. a tract of land and took their three notes payable in one, two and three years, and a mortgage of the land to secure the payment of the purchase money. A. *&*B. then conveyed to J., who afterwards gave his three notes to V., identical in date, time of payment, amounts, &c., the mortgage remaining open, and A. *&*B.’s. notes were surrendered to them. Action was brought by "V. after the first two notes were due, but before the third was payable, for foreclosure, &c. The Circuit judge, upon testimony *614taken *ore tenus*found that the mortgage was not satisfied, that the intention of the parties was- that J. should take the land encumbered with the lien of this mortgage, and that he assumed the payment of the debt, and that his substituted notes were not taken in payment. On appeal this court approved these findings of fact, and held that there was nothing in this arrangement obnoxious to the statute of frauds. OPINION by

June 24th, 1881.

*J. J. Norton,*for appellant. *W. O. Keith,*contra.

Hudson, A. A. J.,

(in place of McGowan, A. J.,)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                                 0
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                          1,001,236
<EQUITIES>                                      21,057
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,172,200
<CASH>                                          70,747
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             787,344
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          31,537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,265,043
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,603,548
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            137,353
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                122,017
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           132
<OTHER-SE>                                     318,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,265,043
<PREMIUMS>                                     388,813
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             77,969
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                              16,874
<OTHER-INCOME>                                (14,258)
<BENEFITS>                                     328,400
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                     71,538
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            70,250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (790)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,887
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,097
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
<RESERVE-OPEN>                               1,605,374
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            256,528
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               21,872
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              90,635
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               279,490
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                              1,603,548
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                       (21,872)
        

</TABLE>
#### Mahlon Douglas REED *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 73-99

498 S.W. 2d 877

Opinion delivered September 17, 1973

*Henry S. Wilson,*for appellant.

*Jim Guy Tucker,*Atty. Gen., by: *James W. Atkins,*Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

George Rose Smith, Justice.

Reed was convicted of burglary and grand larceny and was sentenced to 15 *64years in prison upon each charge. For reversal he contends that his confession should not have been admitted in evidence, because the officers who obtained the confession did not fully inform him of his constitutional rights.

That contentiom must be sustained. Before questioning Reed one of the officers read a statement of rights from a printed form, which included this declaration: “You have the right to consult an attorney before making any statement or answering any question, and you may have him present with you during questioning.” Reed was also told that the court would appoint an attorney for him if he could not afford one, but the officer readily admitted that by the latter statement he merely indicated to Reed that if he did not have an attorney before he went to trial the court would appoint one for him.

The officer’s statement of Reed’s rights was fatally defective in that it failed to inform Reed that he was entitled to the services of an appointed attorney at the time of the interrogation. That precise point was carefully explained in *Miranda*v. *Arizona,*384 U.S. 436 1966):

> In order fully to apprise a person interrogated of the extent of his rights under this system then, it is necessary to warn him not only that he has the right to consult with an attorney, but also that if he is indigent a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Without this additional warning, the admonition of the right to consult with counsel would often be understood as meaning only that he can consult with a láwyer if he has one or has the funds to obtain one.

> * # # #

> This does not mean, as some have suggested, that each police station must have a “station house lawyer” present at all times to advise prisoners. It does mean, however, that if police propose to interrogate *65a person they must make known to him that he is entitled to a lawyer and that if he cannot afford one, a lawyer will be provided for him prior to any interrogation.

See also *Moore*v. *State,*251 Ark. 436, 472 S.W. 2d 940 (1971).

Reversed.
EX-32
      SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF JAMES H. ALEXANDER

                     SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

In connection with the quarterly report of World Am, Inc.
("Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Report"), the
undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that to his knowledge:

1.  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 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: October 12, 2005                By: /s/ James H. Alexander
                                       James H. Alexander
                                       President/Chief Executive Officer
                                       (principal financial officer)
2002 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

8-5-2002

Bracken v. Matgouranis

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 01-3800

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2002 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Bracken v. Matgouranis" (2002). 2002 Decisions. Paper 474.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002/474
PRECEDENTIAL 

 Filed August 5, 2002 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

Nos. 01-3800 and 01-3801 

CHERYL ANN BRACKEN; 

H. DAVID ROTHMAN, 

 Appellants in 01-3800 

v. 

PANOREA MATGOURANIS; DIANNA CALABOYIAS 

WYRICK; WILLIAM J. WYRICK; REED SMITH, a 

partnership or limited liability partnership; MEYER, 

DARRAGH, BUCKLER, BEBENEK & ECK, a partnership 

or limited liability partnership 

CHERYL ANN BRACKEN; 

H. DAVID ROTHMAN, 

 Appellants in 01-3801 

v. 

MARTIN P. MATGOURANIS; PANOREA MATGOURANIS; 

DIANNA C. WYRICK; WILLIAM J. WYRICK 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

For the Western District of Pennsylvania 

D.C. Nos. 01-cv-00288 and 01-cv-00420 

District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) 

June 14, 2002 

Before: ROTH, RENDELL, and ROSENN, Circuit Jud ges. 

Opinion filed: July 15, 2002 

 

ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION 

The slip opinion in the above case is hereby amended as 

follows: 

 1. Delete the sentence on page 6, second paragraph, 

 beginning on line 7, beginning "Although the 

 plaintiffs" and ending with "the District Court or 

 this Court." 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Max Rosenn 

 Circuit Judge. 

DATED: August 5, 2002 
A True Copy: 

Teste: 

 Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals 

 for the Third Circuit 

 2
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 7 (Tuesday, January 11, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 1427]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-00295]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIH/NIAID 102--Genetically 
Engineered Mice for Pre-clinical Evaluation of HIV Vaccine 
Candidates (N01).
    Date: January 27, 2022
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G36, 
Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Poonam Pegu, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G36, Rockville, MD 
20852, 240-292-0719 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87f7e8e8e9e6eaa9f7e2e0f2c7e9eeefa9e0e8f1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="35455a5a5b54581b45505240755b5c5d1b525a43">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 5, 2022.
Tyeshia M. Roberson-Curtis,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-00295 Filed 1-10-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Judge Bray and Senior Judge Duff Argued at Alexandria, Virginia

D. MICHAEL INGRAM MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 1158-95-4 PER CURIAM MAY 21, 1996 DONNA SNARR-INGRAM

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY Paul F. Sheridan, Judge D. Michael Ingram, pro se . No brief or argument for appellee.

Code § 20-108.2(G)(3) provides, in shared custody cases, that the amount of child support to be paid is the difference between the amounts owed by each parent to the other parent, with the parent owing the larger amount paying the difference to the other. We reject the appellee's assertion that the money is owing to the child, not the other parent. From the record before us it appears that the terms of the statute were not followed in calculating the amount of the child support. The order appealed from is reversed and remanded. It is also unclear from the record whether the appellant's second issue, viz ., the amount of the appellee's health insurance costs, has merit. Upon remand the trial court shall make a factual finding, based upon additional evidence, if necessary, as

to the actual health costs incurred.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Reversed and remanded.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements on FormS-8 (File Nos. 333-135731, 333-107005, 333-39974, 333-33760, 333-80691, 333-28435, 333-20925) of our report relating to the consolidated financial statements of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. dated February 26, 2008 (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relating to the adoption of FASB Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes – an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*, in 2007 andthe adoption of FASB Statement No. 158, *Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit Pension and Other Postretirement Plans – an amendment of FASB Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R)*, in 2006), and management’s reporton the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting also dated February 26, 2008, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pharmaceutical Product Development, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007. 

Raleigh, North Carolina 

February 26, 2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

OF THE SOUTHWEST, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

SARASWATI TAMANG, et al., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:17-cv-1030 

JUDGE GEORGE C. SMITH 

Magistrate Judge Vascura 

ORDER 

This matter is before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment. (Docs. 22 

and 23). The Clerk of this Court previous entered default against Defendant on May 2, 2018, 

and Plaintiff moved for Default Judgment on May 14, 2018. Upon consideration of the 

foregoing, the Court finds that Defendants are in default for failure to timely plead to the 

Complaint and that default judgment on Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory judgment is authorized 

and appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(1) and (b)(2). It is therefore hereby: 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, Life 

Insurance Company of the Southwest (“LSW”), and against Defendants Saraswati Tamang and 

Sha Bahadur Tamang, as follows: 

1. That LSW Insurance Policy No. LS0489809 on the life of Saraswati Tamang is 

rescinded and LSW had no obligation to Saraswati Tamang beyond return of the 

premiums paid on said policy; and 

2. That LSW Insurance Policy No. LS0489812 on the life of Sha Bahadur Tamang is 

rescinded and LSW had no obligation to Sha Bahadur Tamang beyond return of 

the premiums paid on said policy. 
2 

Although LSW further seeks an award of attorney’s fees and costs, it has provided the 

Court with no grounds for such an award. Even when a defendant wholly fails to respond to a 

plaintiff’s complaint, the Court may review the complaint to ensure the plaintiff has adequately 

stated a claim and require a prima facie showing of liability. See Moore v. United Kingdom, 384 

F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir. 2004); Ramos-Falcon v. Autoridad de Energia Electirica, 301F.3d 1, 2 

(1st Cir. 2002); Quirindongo Pacheco v. Rolon Morales, 953 F.2d 15, 16 (1st Cir. 2002); Tele 

Video System, Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917 (9th Cir. 1987); Doe v. Qi, 349 F. Supp. 2d 

1258, 1272 (C.D. Cal. 2004); In re DIRECTV, Inc., 2004 WL 2645971 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2004). 

In the absence of a contractual or statutory provision for fee shifting, the “American 

Rule” generally requires litigants (even successful litigants) to bear their own attorney’s fees. 

BDT Prod., Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 602 F.3d 742, 752 (6th Cir. 2010). Because LSW has not 

identified any contract or statute that would support such an award, LSW’s request for an award 

of attorney’s fees and costs is DENIED. 

The Clerk shall remove Documents 22 and 23 from the Court’s pending motions list and 

close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT