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

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
                    This schedule contains summary financial information
                    extracted from the financial statements contained in
                    the Company's Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
                    September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its entirety by
                    reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                  <C>              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS            9-MOS
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1999      SEP-30-1998
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    DEC-31-1999      DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                   $22,076         $ 35,241
<SECURITIES>                              49,964           29,324
<RECEIVABLES>                             70,584           87,421
<ALLOWANCES>                             (26,805)          (3,960)
<INVENTORY>                               40,932           55,313
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         163,267          214,737
<PP&E>                                    32,773           38,976
<DEPRECIATION>                           (26,795)         (24,635)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           197,943          337,345
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     57,936           57,655
<BONDS>                                  108,319          116,107
<COMMON>                                     563              547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0                0
<PREFERRED>                                    0                0
<OTHER-SE>                                31,125          163,036
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           197,943          337,345
<SALES>                                   30,313          102,032
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          30,313          102,032
<CGS>                                     26,000           78,562
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             26,000           78,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          10,780           13,799
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         1,817            5,746
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (53,137)        (117,904)
<INCOME-TAX>                               2,995            3,693
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (56,132)        (121,597)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0                0
<CHANGES>                                      0                0
<NET-INCOME>                             (56,132)        (121,597)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (2.16)           (4.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (2.16)           (4.69)


</TABLE>
#### Ronnie Matthews COUSINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Justin R. ARONSON, Police Officer/Sergeant #354, Defendant-Appellee. *698Ronnie Matthews Cousins, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Justin R. Aronson, Police Officer/Sergeant #354, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6217, No. 17-6339

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: June 22, 2017

Decided: June 27, 2017

Ronnie Matthews Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. Julie A. C. Seyfarth, Assistant County Attorney, Emily Claire Russell, CHESTERFIELD COUNTY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Chesterfield, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Ronnie Matthews Cousins appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Cousins v. Aronson,*No. 1:15-cv-01505-CMH-JFA, 2017 WL 101313 (E.D. Va. Jan. 10, 2017; Feb. 14, 2017; Feb. 17, 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*
#### Hattie H. Farrell, Adm’rx, Resp’t, v. Arthur J. Horgan *et*al., App'lts.

*Chas. Steckler,*for resp’t; *Edward W. S. Johnston,*for app’lts.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except Finch, J., absent.

Affirming 38 N. Y. State Rep., 1025.
Phantom 2 Vision+ Checklist 

Preflight 

1. Remove transmitter. 

3. 

4. Toggle Switches and Antenna - Full Up 

5. Phone - On - Battery > 70% - Airplane Mode On -

Wifi On - Phone Volume Full Up 

6. Remove UA V from case. 

6. UA V Airframe and 

8. Micro-SD card - Inserted Check 

9. UAV Battery - Inserted Check 

10. Place UAV in clear and safe launch and recovery 

position if it returns to home. 

11. UA V B - On- V . 

12. 

12. Wifi Connection to Phone- Verified 

13. DJI Application- Open 

14. DJI application - Tap Camera icon to connect to 

Camera - verify 

15. SD Card- Check 

16. Camera - Full U -Gimbal free and correct 

16. -(rear lights blink red and 

yellow) flip S1 five times- rear UA V lights solid 

yellow - UA V Horizontal 360 rotation- rear lights 

Green - UA V Vertical 360 rotation with nose down 

normal blink 

·18. Charge Levels - Safe for Flight 

18. Toggle Switches- Full Up- Check 

19. Video Recording- Start 

20. Start Motors - CSC - sticks bottom inside 

corners 

20. Smooth motors - Check 

20. Takeoff 

1. Hover approximately ten feet above the ground to 

confirm UAV is under control. 

2. All sticks operate correctly while in hoverVerified 

Phantom 2 Vision + Checklist 

1. Camera - Full Up 

2. Landing Zone - Clear I Safe 

Post-Landing -Returning to Flight Immediately 

1. Battery - Remove & Replace 

2. Wifi Connection to Monitor - Verified 

3. DJI application - Connect to Camera 

4. Satellite Connections - Verified - Rear lights 

slow green flash 

5. Charge Levels - Safe for Flight 

6. Toggle Switches - Full Up - Check 

7. Video Recording - Start 

8. Start Motors- CSC- sticks bottom inside corners 

9. Smooth motors - Check 

10. Takeoff - Hover - Verify UA V Control 

EndofO 

1. Battery - Off 

2. Transmitter - Off 

3. Router - Off 

Failsafe Return to Home Mode 

Intercept the return home mode- toggle Sl to 

center or lower position - take control of the 

UAV
II 

Calendar No. 537 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6810 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 4, 2024 

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

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported by Mr. PETERS, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, as the ‘‘U.S. Army Air Corps Major Thomas B. 

McGuire Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6810 RS

1 SECTION 1. U.S. ARMY AIR CORPS MAJOR THOMAS B. 

2 MCGUIRE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

4 Postal Service located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in 

5 Sebring, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘U.S. Army Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post 

7 Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

11 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘U.S. Army Air Corps 

12 Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building’’. 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS

ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 537 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6810 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostBuilding’’. Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office in Sebring, Florida, as the ‘‘U.S. Army Air al Service located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive 

SEPTEMBER 25, 2024 

Reported without amendment 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD 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 Quarterly Report of Concierge Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David W. Neibert, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:




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




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






Date: November 22, 2010
By:
/s/ David W. NeibertDavid W. NeibertChief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concierge Technologies, Inc. and will be retained by Concierge Technologies, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People, Resp’ts, *v.*John Dewey, App’lt.2

*(Court of Appeals,*

*Filed June 23, 1891.)*

Appeal—Court of appeals—Stipulation.

This court cannot base a reversal upon matter brought into the case by stipulation made subsequent to the judgment of the general term. The parties cannot agree upon a case and submit it to this court for decision.

*886Appeal from judgment of the supreme court, general term, fifth department, affirming conviction of defendant for selling lottery policies.

*Tracy C.*Becker, for app’lt; *George C. Quinby,*for resp’ts.

2

 Affirming 33 N. Y. State Rep., 437.

Per Curiam.

The stipulation which we find in the printed case, made by the parties after the decision of the general term, cannot be considered upon this appeal. It is no part of the record. The case must be heard here upon the same record which was before the general term. The parties cannot agree upon .a case and submit it to this court for decision This is purely a court of review, and we consider only errors alleged to have been committed by the court below. We cannot base a reversal of the judgment appealed from upon matter subsequently brought into the case by stipulation. Therefore, disregarding the stipulation, we see no reason to doubt that the judgment of the general term is right, and it must be affirmed upon the opinion there pronounced.

All concur, except Finch, J., absent.
Exhibit 99.8






graphicKPMG LLP

Chartered Accountants

PO Box 10426 777 Dunsmuir Street

Vancouver BC V7Y 1K3

Canada
Telephone (604) 691-3000

Fax              (604) 691-3031

Internet      www.kpmg.ca
  
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
   The Board of Directors
 Asanko Gold Inc.
   We consent to the use of our reports, each dated March 28, 2013, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Asanko Gold Inc. included in this Annual Report on Form 40-F.
  
 Chartered Accountants
  Vancouver, Canada
 March 28, 2013


KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG
 network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative
 (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.
 KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
#### Hunter v. The City of Des Moines *et al.*

Appeal : EQUITY CASE : DEFECTIVE ABSTRACT : BILL OF EXCEPTIONS. In a cause triable *de novo*in this court, while a formal bill of exceptions is not required, it should appear that the evidence offered below was duly made a part of the record, and that the abstract presented here is full and correct, not only as to the evidence, but as to the whole record. And where appellant’s abstract purported to be a full and correct abstract of the whole record, but appellee’s abstract denied this statement, and averred that both abstracts together did not present a full and correct abstract of the record, and appellant, in an amended abstract, did not controvert the denial of the appellee, *held*that appellee’s denial must stand, and that the cause could not be tried *de novo.*

*. Appeal from Polk District Court.*— Hon. *W.*P. Conrad, Judge.

Filed, March 12, 1888.

Action in equity. The district court rendered a decree in favor of plaintiff. The defendant, the city of Des Moines, appeals.

*Detrick & McMartin*and *Hugh Brennan,*for appellant.

*James M. <& George B. McCaughan,*for appellee.

Robinson, J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover the amount of a promissory note, and asks the foreclosure of a mortgage on two lots in the city of Des Moines, given to secure the same. He also asks to have certain assessments made by appellant on the mortgaged property for sidewalk and sewer p urposes set aside as void, or declared to be junior to the mortgage. The abstract purports to contain all the evidence offered on the trial, together with objections " and rulings made and exceptions taken; but it does not claim that these matters *216were made a part of the record. Apppllee filed an additional abstract, in which he denies that a bill of exceptions was ever settled, signed or filed in this case; denies that the abstract of appellant is a full and correct abstract of the record, and denies that the abstract of appellant, and the additional . abstract of appellee, together, present a full and correct abstract of the record. Appellant filed an amendment to his abstract, but does not in any manner controvert the statements of the additional abstract. They must, therefore, be taken as true. *Kearney v.*Ferguson, 50 Iowa, 72 ; *Burkhart v.*Ball, 59 Iowa, 630 ; *Richardson v.*Hoyt, 60 Iowa, 70 ; *State v.*Tucker, 68 Iowa, 51 ; *Maxwell v. La*Brune, 68 Iowa, 690. This action is triable in this court *de novo.*A formal bill of exceptions is not required, but it should appear that the evidence offered in the district court was duly made a part of the record, and that the abstract submitted to us is full and correct, not only as to the evidence, but as to the entire record. *Daniels v. Langdon,*52 Iowa, 741 ; *Greer v.*Dickey, 53 Iowa, 755 ; *Gaylord v.*Taft, 53 Iowa, 757 ; *Hart v.*Jackson, 57 Iowa, 76 ; *Boyle v. Mallett,*67 Iowa, 516. Since it is not shown that we have a full and correct abstract of what should be of record, the case cannot be tried in this court. It is, therefore,

. Affirmed.
#### Patricia A. TORRE, an individual Plaintiff-Appellant v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORP., a Delaware Corporation Defendant-Appellee

No. 16-4143

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: September 7, 2017

Filed: September 12, 2017

Benjamin W. Thompson, Thompson Law Office, Omaha, NE, Terry A. White, Carlson & Burnett, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Andrew Stevenson Bogue, Cody Elyse Brookhouser, Abigail M. Moland, McGrath & North, Omaha, NE, David Ellsworth *478Copple, Copple & Rockey, Norfolk, NE, for Defendant-Appellee

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Patricia Torre appeals the district court’s1 order granting summary judgment in favor of Northrop Grumman Systems Corp. on her claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation. Following de novo review of the record, and construing the evidence most favorably to Torre, we agree with the district court that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that Northrop Grumman Systems is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Henthorn v. Capitol Commc’ns, Inc., 359 F.3d 1021, 1026 (8th Cir. 2004). Specifically, we agree that Torre’s allegations did not rise to the level of an actionable hostile work environment claim, see Blomker v. Jewell, 831 F.3d 1051, 1056 (8th Cir. 2016) (elements of Title VII sexual harassment hostile work environment claim); Father Flanagan’s Boys’ Home v. Agnew, 256 Neb. 394, 590 N.W.2d 688, 693 (1999) (Nebraska employment discrimination law patterned after Title VII), and that she did not rebut evidence that Northrop Grumman acted pursuant to its legitimate, non-retaliatory business judgment in eliminating her position, see Hutton v. Maynard, 812 F.3d 679, 684-85 (8th Cir. 2016). The judgment is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable Laurie Smith Camp, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6810 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 537
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6810

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 4, 2024

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

                           September 25, 2024

               Reported by Mr. Peters, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, as the ``U.S. Army 
       Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. U.S. ARMY AIR CORPS MAJOR THOMAS B. MCGUIRE POST OFFICE 
              BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``U.S. Army Air Corps Major Thomas B. 
McGuire 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 ``U.S. Army 
Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 537

118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 6810

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 518 North Ridgewood Drive in Sebring, Florida, as the ``U.S. Army 
       Air Corps Major Thomas B. McGuire Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 25, 2024

                       Reported without amendment
```
Filed May 4, 1891.

#### James Curran. App’lt, v. David Christie, Resp’t.

Appeal from order of the city court.

Appeal dismissed, with costs.
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**


**(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**





I, Allen E. Kahn, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:








1.
I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Concierge Technologies, Inc.;2.
Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;3.
Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;4.
The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:a.
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;b.
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.
The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a.
all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.





****Date: February 17, 2005
By:
/s/ *Allen E. Kahn*Allen E. KahnChief Executive Officer


Exhibit 31Page 1 of 1 Page