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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS OF UROLOGIX FOR THE SIX MONTH
PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         211,621
<SECURITIES>                                24,595,381
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,482,078
<ALLOWANCES>                                   220,773
<INVENTORY>                                  1,236,864
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            27,937,535
<PP&E>                                       5,200,985
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,182,800
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,154,408
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,472,461
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       114,952
<OTHER-SE>                                  31,566,995
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                34,154,408
<SALES>                                      3,831,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,831,654
<CGS>                                        2,265,249
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,265,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,142,709
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,843,923
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,843,923
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,843,923
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.33)


</TABLE>
Consent of Colm Keogh
 
 I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “NI 43-101 Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada” effective date January 16, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2013, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.
 
 
 Dated this 28th day of March, 2014
 
 
 “Colm Keogh”Name:
Colm Keogh, P. Eng.Title:
Principal Mining Engineer
Exhibit 99.1

                    Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ISP Chemco Inc.
(the "Company") for the quarterly period ended March 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Sunil
Kumar, as President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Neal E.
Murphy, as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
each hereby certifies, 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 his
knowledge and belief:

         (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/ Sunil Kumar
---------------------------------
Name:   Sunil Kumar
Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:   May 13, 2003


  /s/ Neal E. Murphy
---------------------------------
Name:   Neal E. Murphy
Title:  Senior Vice President and
          Chief Financial Officer

Date:   May 13, 2003

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

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Crescencio PEREZ-PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. E. RAY, Warden of FCI Estill, SC, as an individual and in his official capacity; C. E. Floyd, Warden of FCI Estill, SC, as an individual and in his official capacity; E. Rain Water, A.H.S.A, as an individual and in her official capacity; Dr. Jose Hernandez, Medical Officer, as an individual and in his official capacity; B. Parina, M.D., as an individual and in his official capacity; Dr. Ross Rames, M.D., as an individual and in his official capacity; Carolyn V. Rickards, Regional Director, as an individual and in her official capacity; Wendy J. Roal, Administrator National Inmate Appeals, as an individual and in her official capacity; Frederick Goulding, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-1578

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Crescencio Perez-Perez, Appellant Pro Se.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Crescencio Perez-Perez appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Perez-Perez v. Ray,*No. 9:16-cv-03574-CMC, 2017 WL 1135220 (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1298 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1298

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 2, 2022

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 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, as the ``Technical 
            Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL SERGEANT MARSHAL ROBERTS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1233 North Cedar Street in Owasso, Oklahoma, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Technical Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``Technical 
Sergeant Marshal Roberts Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives February 1, 2022.

            Attest:

                                             CHERYL L. JOHNSON,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 May 11, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-15957

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 04-00354-CV-P-S

SOUTHTRUST BANK, an Alabama 

Banking Corporation,

Plaintiff-Appellee

 Cross-Appellant,

versus

COLLINS HOLDING CORPORATION, 

f.k.a. Collins Music Co., Inc., et al.,

Defendants-Appellants

 Cross-Appellees.

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(May 11, 2005)

Before BIRCH, DUBINA and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.
In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), we

1

adopted as binding precedent the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to

October 1, 1981. 

2

PER CURIAM:

This case was presented to the district court on cross-motions to enforce a

settlement agreement reached at the conclusion of a mediation that took place in

Atlanta, Georgia. After conducting an evidentiary hearing, the district court found

that the parties entered into a valid settlement that included paragraph 4 of the

Memorandum Of Understanding (“MOU”).

The question of whether the parties intended to enter into a valid settlement

agreement is a question of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. 

See Lee v. Hunt, 631 F.2d 1171, 1177 (5th Cir. 1980). The question of whether 1

an attorney had the requisite authority to bind his client to a settlement agreement

is also a question of fact subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review. 

Gymco Constr. Co. v. Architectural Glass and Windows, Inc., 884 F.2d 1362,

1364 (11th Cir. 1989). 

This court reviews a district court’s conclusions of law de novo. 

Sunderland Marine Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weeks Marine Const. Co., 338 F.3d 1276,

1277 (11th Cir. 2003). 
3

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we conclude that

the district court correctly found that the parties entered into a valid settlement

containing paragraph 4 of the MOU. Moreover, the district court correctly found

that defendants’ counsel had the authority to bind defendants to the settlement

agreement. 

SouthTrust Bank has filed a cross-appeal contending that it is entitled to

contractual attorneys’ fees and collection costs incurred as a result of the

defendants’ appeal. We do not read the district court’s order requiring SouthTrust

“to convey all of the bank’s rights, title and interest in and to the notes and loan

documents evidencing all of defendants’ indebtedness to the bank” as precluding

SouthTrust from requesting contractual attorneys’ fees and collection costs

following resolution of this appeal. We agree with the defendants that

SouthTrust’s requests for attorneys’ fees and costs is premature. Accordingly, we

affirm the district court’s judgment.

AFFIRMED.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, 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

April 1, 2013

d0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

146372

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146372

COA: 305542

Washtenaw CC: 09-001585-FC

JEROME POWELL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 25, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains  summary financial information extracted from unaudited
financial statements for the nine month period ending September 30, 1998 and is 
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                                1
<CURRENCY>                                       U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                     1
<CASH>                                      1,983,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                               4,565,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (20,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    0
<PP&E>                                     61,070,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (13,528,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             61,370,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               0
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  6,819,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               61,370,000
<SALES>                                     9,211,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            9,913,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            7,609,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,645,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,442,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,422,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,422,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (4,804)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (4,804)
        


</TABLE>
Natalie Wojcik

Direct Services Supervisor Sitkans Against Family Violence Sincerely, Harris Air's services have been professional and convenient. We support their efforts to increase their services and receive their Air Carrier Certificate. Furthermore, when a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault from the villages of Kake,Angoon or Port Alexander needs to leave for safety reasons and come to Sitka, we flythem here through Harris Air. Without this service, it would be much more challenging to provide immediate safety for victims of violence in the villages SAFVserves. As part of our rural outreach, we travel to the villages of Kake and Angoon to provide support and education on the topics of domestic violence and sexual assault We also provide support to the schools by givlng them resources to teach children about safety and healthy relationships. We have heavily relied on Harris Air as our means of transportation to get us to and from those villages in a timely

manner. Sitkans Against Family Violence has been utilizing Harris Air's services for many years to fly both staff members and clients of SAFV to and from the villages of Kake, Angoon and Port Alexander. September 3, 2014



### P.O. Box 6136 • Sitka, Alaska 99835 (907) 747-3370. Fax 747-3450. Crisis Line 1-800-478-6511 

## SITKANS AGAINST FAMILY VIOLENCE
#### CSP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant v. CLARIANT CORPORATION, Appellee

2015-2062

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 8, 2016

*780John Lloyd Abramic, Steptoe & Johnson, LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appellant. Also represented by Jambs Richard Nut-tall, Katherine H. Johnson.

Sean M. Sullivan, Lee Sullivan Shea *&*Smith LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for appel-lee. Also represented by John Dan Smith III; Paula Fritsch, Paul Henry Berghopf, McDonnell, Boehnen, Hulbert *&*Berghoff, LLP, Chicago, IL.

(Moore, Reyna, and Taranto, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
Jeremy John MARUSKA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D16-3317

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed June 1, 2018

Marie-Louise Samuels Parmer, of Samuels Parmer Law Firm PA, Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Jeremy John Maruska appeals his judgment and sentence for first-degree premeditated and felony murder and robbery with a deadly weapon. We agree that the robbery conviction cannot be sustained under our standard of review and accordingly reverse the judgment and concurrent life sentence on that charge. We affirm the judgment and sentence on the first-degree premeditated murder conviction.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.

COHEN, C.J., SAWAYA and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Clifton Keith JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5104

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 2, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Carlos SIMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-607

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift
Energy Income Partners 1986-A, LTD.'s balance sheet and statement of
operations contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                           1,497
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,981
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,478
<PP&E>                                       3,653,807
<DEPRECIATION>                             (3,497,004)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,443
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     102,556
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,356
<SALES>                                        112,253
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               112,345
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  134,652<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,912
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (47,341)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,341)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expense, production taxes, and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative
and interest expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
June 15, 2015

Mr. Gary Young 

Universal Vacations Ft. Myers, Inc. 

9720 Commerce Center Court 

Fort Myers, FL 33908 

Dear Mr. Young: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your June 3, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1883), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
#### Julio Ernesto MELENDEZ LIZAMA, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 16-2033

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 30, 2017

Decided: September 11, 2017

John T. Riely, Rockville, Maryland, for Petitioner. Chad A. Readier, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Linda S. Wernery, Assistant Director, Janice K. Redfern, Senior Litigation Counsel, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Julio Ernesto Melendez Lizama, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) dismissing his appeal of the Immigration Judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of removal. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the transcript of Melendez Lizama’s merits hearing and all sup*189porting evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the agency’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision, *INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re Melendez Lizama*(B.I.A Aug. 9, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED*