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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   4-MOS                   1-MO
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-03-1997             SEP-03-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                               7                       5
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                        137                     180
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     173                     215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0                       0
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             1                       1
<OTHER-SE>                                         139                     139
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       173                     215
<SALES>                                              4                      13
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     4                      14
<CGS>                                                4                      12
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        4                      13
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (2)                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                (2)                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       1                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       (1)                       0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.04)                     .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                     .02


</TABLE>
**AD Economic Evaluation**

Docket No . FAA - 20 13 - 0872 Directorate ID : 20 13 - SW - 012 - AD Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, AS332L , AS332L 1, AS332L2, EC225LP, SA330J Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U. S. Operators): 46 Helicopters in the US Registry . Reason : The actions of this proposed AD are intended to detect corrosion or a crack on a turnbuckle and prevent the failure of a turnbuckle, loss of control of the tail rotor and subsequent loss of control of the helicopter. Costs: We estimate that labor costs would average $85 per work - hour. Based on this estimate, we expect the following costs:

 In specting the tail rotor control turnbuckles for corrosion or a crack would require 4 work - hours for a labor cost of $340. Parts would cost $148 for a total cost of $488 per helicopter, $22,448 for the U.S. fleet.

 Treating the turnbuckle to prevent corrosion would require 1 work - hour for a labor cost of $85. The cost of parts is minimal for a total co st of $85 per helicopter.

 Replacing the turnbuckle would not require additional labor costs because it can be done as part of the inspection. Parts would cost $173 for a total cost of $173 per helicopter. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of sm all entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Engineer : Robert Grant
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

SECTION 1350CERTIFICATIONS

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

                In connection withthe Annual Report of California Coastal Communities, Inc. (the  “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Sandra G. Sciutto, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to Rule 13(a)-14(b) or Rule 15(d)-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

 

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

 

2.               The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby 18 U.S.C. 1350 has been provided to California Coastal Communities, Inc. andwill be retained by California Coastal Communities, Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

 
| Dated: March 15, 2005 | /s/ Sandra G. Sciutto   |   |
|-----------------------|-------------------------|--------|
|                  | Sandra G. Sciutto       |
|                  | Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----

*In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), the abovecertification (A) shall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to theliability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated byreference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that theCompany explicitly incorporates it by reference in any such filing.

 

----
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

6730 Martin Way E., Olympia, Washington 98516-5540 

Phone (360) 438-1180 www.nwifc.org FAX# 753-8659 

Dennis Mclerran, Regional Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, WA 98101-3140 

DearAd~M£~ 

July 17, 2013 

The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission with it member tribes would like to offer our thanks for 

your timely letter of June 21, 2013 to Ecology Director Maia Bellon regarding the adoption of revised 

human health criteria in state water quality standards. We particularly appreciate your documentation 

of several important points-that there are scientifically sound regional and local data sufficient for 

Washington to move forward, that the current human health criteria are not sufficiently protective, and 

that EPA has the authority to amend the human health criteria for Washington if the state's process is 

unnecessarily delayed. 

The recent efforts by industrial dischargers to delay the rule-making process via the Washington State 

Legislature have been astonishing. The request for another study of fish consumption rates would have 

been an unnecessary use of taxpayer money for several reasons. First of all, Washington State already 

has scientifically defensible studies of fish consumption among tribes and communities of Asians and 

Pacific Islanders, as your letter aptly points out. Secondly, even if such a study were to be completed to 

document consumption by the so-called general population, Federal environmental justice guidelines 

require the use of human health criteria that accurately depict and protect fish consumption by tribes 

and other culturally or racially distinct communities. Finally, we note again that tribes are unique in 

their status as sovereign nations with treaty rights to the harvest and consumption of healthy fisheries 

resources, regardless of state-sponsored surveys. 

We greatly appreciate your efforts to get the state moving on the adoption of appropriate human health 

criteria in state water quality standards. Tribes have watched the continual delays and processes for 

several years, and it is time to hold the state to their own established timelines to get the job done. We 

expect the state to complete a draft rule by this winter with accurate, protective human health criteria, 

and failing that, urge you to remain steadfast in your role as trustee of tribal treaty resources. Thank 

you. 

cc: NWIFC Commissioners 

Governor Jay lnslee 

Sincerely, 

B~ Billy Frank, Jr 

Chairman 

Director Maia Bellon, Washington Department of Ecology
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                          
<ARTICLE>                      5
                                
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                          170,981
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                         0
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      0
<PP&E>                                0
<DEPRECIATION>                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  849,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 0
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                              0
<OTHER-SE>                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    849,087
<SALES>                               0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  6,667
<CGS>                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   215,621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               (269,525)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  60,571
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   0
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     60,571
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                      2.26
        


</TABLE>
aax8kex102_2282011.htm




EXHIBIT 10.2


 












Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404


 







February 27, 2011







Accelerated Acquisitions X, Inc.


1840 Gateway Drive, Suite 200


Foster City, CA 94404












Re:           Tender of shares for cancellation







Gentlemen:







By this letter, the undersigned tenders for cancellation 1,500,000 of the 5,000,000 shares of common stock par value $0.0001 of Accelerated Acquisitions, X, Inc. (the “Company”) which it holds.  Following the cancellation of such shares and the issuance of consulting shares Accelerated Venture Partners, LLC will hold a total of 3,000,000 of the Company’s Common Shares.







Sincerely,







ACCELERATED VENTURE PARTNERS, LLC


















	
By:

	
/s/ Timothy Neher


	  	
Timothy Neher, Managing Member
Hon. W. A. Davis 

State Registrar 

Texas State Board of Health 

. . - 

Opinion No. O-3.525 

Re: Whether or not 

gitimate child born 

. . . . . 

an illeto a 

, . Austin, Texas aivorcea motner takes tne 

surname of her divorced husDear Mr. Davis: band or her maiden name? 

We beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 

June 4, 1941, as follows, to-wit: 

“Will you please advise me as to the legal 

name of an illegitimate child born to a divorced 

mother, who retained the name of her former husband? Should such a child take the surname of 

her divorced husband, or her maiden. name before 

she married?” 

As a relic of the Common Law of marriage, the wife, 

upon her marriage, takes the name of her husband. This is 

the legitimate fruit of the Common Law conception, that upon 

marriage the identity of the wife as a juristic person was 

merged in that of her husband. 

There is no statute of Texas touching the question 

but it has been decided by the Supreme Court that the rule oh 

the Common Law, in the absence of a statute, governs the matter. 

“Upon marriage the law confers upon the wife 

the name of her husband, and this continues to be 

her lawful name till changed by a subsequent marriage, or by the decree of a competent court as 

on final disposition of the divorce proceeding 

where such change of name is specially prayed for, 

-- a relic of the Common Law fiction of unity. 

While there is nothing in our statute compe~lling 

the wife to take or assume the name of her husband, 

yet by operation of law her husband’s surname becomes her’s upon marriage. It has been held that 

she is not bound by a judgment in a suit against 

her in her name, as where she is cited therein by 

publicat ion D In such case she is not a party to 

the suit 0u -- Speer’s Law of Marital Rights (3d 

Ed.) p. 28, X 26. 
Hon. W. A. Davis, page 2 (O-3525) 

The text quoted cites Murphy v. Coffey, 33 Tex. 

508, and Freeman v. Hawkins, 77 Tex. 1498. 

The case of Barkley v. Dunke, 87 S.W. 1147, by 

our Supreme Court illustrates the effect of marriage upon 

the status of the wife in this, that there had been a void 

marriage because the husband had a living wife, nevertheless the court held that the marriage had the statutory ef-~ 

feet to emancipate the woman from the disability of infancy, 

which status began with and abided beyond the marriage status. There had been a dissolution of the attempted marriage 

in that case. 

page 27, X 25. 

See Speer's Law of Marital Rights (3d Ed.) 

From these authorities it follows that your question should be answered to the effect that in the case you 

put the illegitimate child takes the name of its mother, 

which, of course, in the case you state is the same as that 

of her divorced husband. 

Very truly yours 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By /s/ Ocie Speer 

Ocie Speer, Assistant 

APPROVED JUN 11, 1941 

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY: BMB, CHAIRMAN 

OS:m:vb
STATE of North Carolina v. Abache IBRAHIM, Defendant.

No. COA18-1081

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: August 6, 2019

NO ERROR.
exhibit10b.htm


 


 


 


EXHIBIT 10.49






TERMS OF CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT WITH AN EXECUTIVE OFFICER


 











The form of Change in Control Agreement (the “Agreement”), filed as Exhibit 10.2 to the Registrant’s Quarterly Report on From 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, contains blanks where the multiple of the executive’s base amount and the term of continued benefits provided under the Agreement vary for certain executives.  The executive officers who entered into the Agreement, the multiple of the executive’s base amount and the term of continued benefits provided under the Agreement are listed in the following chart:








	  	
Number of 


Times Base 


Amount

	
Term of 


Continued 


Benefits


	
Executive Officer

	
Section (4 a)

	
Section (4 b & c)


	
Barbara J. Perino

	  	  
	
Executive Vice President, Operations and Technology of the Bank

	
2 times

	
24 months
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5296 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend certain energy 

tax credits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 4, 2006 

Mr. DAVIS of Tennessee introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 

certain energy tax credits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Renewable Energy En5 hancement Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF ENERGY CREDIT FOR 30 PERCENT 

7 ENERGY PROPERTY. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subclause (II) of section 

9 48(a)(2)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (reVerDate Aug 31 2005 22:42 May 07, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5296.IH H5296

dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5296 IH

1 lating to 30 percent energy credit) is amended by striking 

2 ‘‘January 1, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

3 (b) ENERGY PROPERTY RELATING TO FIBER-OPTIC

4 DISTRIBUTED SUNLIGHT.—Clause (ii) of section 

5 48(a)(3)(A) of such Code (relating to fiber-optic distrib6 uted sunlight) is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 2008’’ 

7 and inserting ‘‘January 1, 2016’’. 

8 (c) QUALIFIED FUEL CELL PROPERTY.—Subpara9 graph (E) of section 48(c)(1) (relating to termination) is 

10 amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2007’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘December 31, 2015’’. 

12 (d) QUALIFIED MICROTURBINE PROPERTY.—Sub13 paragraph (E) of section 48(c)(2) (relating to termi14 nation) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2007’’ and 

15 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’. 

16 SEC. 3. CREDIT FOR RESIDENTIAL ENERGY EFFICIENT 

17 PROPERTY. 

18 (a) EXTENSION.—Subsection (g) of section 25D of 

19 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to termi20 nation) is amended by striking ‘‘December 31, 2007’’ and 

21 inserting ‘‘December 31, 2015’’. 

22 (b) INCREASE IN CREDIT AMOUNT ALLOWED FOR

23 PHOTOVOLTAIC AND SOLAR WATER HEATING PROP24 ERTY.—Subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 25D(b)(1) 

25 of such Code (relating to maximum credit) are amended 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
3 

•HR 5296 IH

1 by striking ‘‘$2,000’’ both places it appears and inserting 

2 ‘‘$5,000’’. 

3 SEC. 4. EXTENSION OF CREDITS RELATING TO GEO4 THERMAL ENERGY. 

5 (a) NONBUSINESS GEOTHERMAL HEAT PUMPS.— 

6 Subsection (g) of section 25C of the Internal Revenue 

7 Code of 1986 (relating to termination) is amended by in8 serting ‘‘(December 31, 2015, in the case of property de9 scribed in subsection (d)(2)(C)(ii) (relating to geothermal 

10 heat pumps))’’ before the period at the end. 

11 (b) ELECTRICITY PRODUCED FROM GEOTHERMAL

12 ENERGY FACILITY.—Section 45(d)(4) of such Code (de13 fining geothermal or solar energy facility) is amended by 

14 striking ‘‘January 1, 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘January 1, 

15 2016’’. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 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 Dahua, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Younglin Du, CEO & President 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 result of operations of the Company.







|                              | 
|----------------------------- | 
|/s/ Yonglin Du                | 
|Yonglin Du, CEO & President   | 
|(principal executive officer) | 



August 14, 2007
#### Julia SCHATZ, Appellant, v. Anthony J. CELEBREZZE, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, Appellee.

No. 519, Docket 29737.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued May 27, 1965.

Decided May 27, 1965.

J. Stanley Shaw, New York City, for appellant.

Barry M. Bloom, Asst. U. S. Atty., Brooklyn, N. Y. (Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, N. Y., on the brief), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and SMITH and KAUFMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in open court the judgment of the District Court for the Eastern District of New York which affirmed an administrative order denying the appellant widow’s insurance benefits under the Social Security Act. This appeal is governed by Nott v. Flemming, 272 F.2d 380 (2 Cir. 1959), to which we adhere.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-20376

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANDRE MCDANIELS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-cr-167-1

Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Andre McDaniels appeals the sentences imposed 

following his guilty-plea conviction on nine counts of tampering with a witness 

by corrupt persuasion. The district court sentenced him to 78 months of 

imprisonment on each count, with those sentences to run concurrently with

each other but consecutively to federal sentences that McDaniels was already 

serving following prior convictions on charges of coercion and enticement. 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 3, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-20376 Document: 00512650683 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/03/2014
No. 13-20376

McDaniels argues that the sentences imposed by the district court were 

substantively unreasonable because the district court did not afford adequate 

weight to the applicable guidelines range – U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3 in particular – in 

its balancing of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 50-51 (2007). He did not object on this basis in the district court, 

however, so plain error review applies. See United States v. Peltier, 505 F.3d 

389, 391-92 (5th Cir. 2007). McDaniels does not attempt to show that the 

alleged error either “affected [his] substantial rights” or “seriously affect[ed] 

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings,” however, so 

he cannot establish reversible plain error. Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 

129, 135 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see also 

United States v. Williams, 620 F.3d 483, 496 (5th Cir. 2010). 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 13-20376 Document: 00512650683 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/03/2014
Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

   Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

      The  undersigned   executive   officer  of  Minden   Bancorp,   Inc.  (the
"Registrant") hereby certifies that the Registrant's Form 10-QSB for the quarter
ended  September 30, 2004 fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934  and that  the  information  contained
therein fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.


                                   /s/ A. David Evans
                                   Name: A. David Evans
                                   Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

Date:November 15, 2004

A signed  original  of this  written  statement  required  by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act has  been  provided  to  Minden  Bancorp,  Inc.  and will be
retained by Minden  Bancorp,  Inc. and furnished to the  Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                                       23