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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          16,754
<SECURITIES>                                    27,204
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,964
<ALLOWANCES>                                        51
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                46,726
<PP&E>                                         153,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 278,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,008
<BONDS>                                         89,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        148
<COMMON>                                            27
<OTHER-SE>                                     140,640
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   278,856
<SALES>                                          4,972
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,682
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,395
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 821
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,058
<INCOME-TAX>                                       463
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                595
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       595
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.22
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit
      32.1**





**Certification**





**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


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




Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the undersigned officer of Radiant Logistics, Inc.
      (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies
      with
      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





DATE:
      November 17, 2008





BY: /s/
      Bohn H. Crain


Chief
      Executive Officer and


Chief
      Financial Officer








This
      certification is made solely for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject
      to
      the knowledge standard set forth therein, and not for any other purpose. It
      is
      not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.





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

Removal from the Register of Case T-142/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/82)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 11 March 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-142/04, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

----

(1)OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.

----
EX-10.2



 





Exhibit 10.2




DSW INC. SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION





	1.	 	Pursuant to the terms of the DSW Inc. 2005 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Equity Incentive
Plan”), each director who is not a member of management of DSW or Retail Ventures, Inc.
receives:






	 	•	 	An annual retainer of $110,000; and
	 
	 	•	 	An additional annual retainer for committee service for each committee on which such
director serves (provided that the committee chairs do not receive such additional
retainer) as follows:






	 	•	 	Audit Committee — $15,000
	 
	 	•	 	Compensation Committee — $11,500
	 
	 	•	 	Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee — $7,500




The annual retainers shall be paid as follows:





	 	•	 	One-half in cash, payable in quarterly installments on the last day of each fiscal
quarter; and
	 
	 	•	 	One-half in stock units, payable on the date of each annual meeting of the shareholders
for the purpose of electing directors, determined by dividing the amount of the retainer
to be paid in stock units by the “Fair Market Value” of a share of “Stock” on the “Grant
Date” pursuant to Section 7.01[3] of the Equity Incentive Plan.






	2.	 	The Chairman of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee receives an additional
annual cash retainer of $20,000, payable in quarterly installments of $5,000 on the last day
of each fiscal quarter, for service as the Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance
Committee.






	3.	 	The Chairman of the Compensation Committee receives an additional annual cash retainer of
$30,000, payable in quarterly installments of $7,500 on the last business day of each fiscal
quarter, for service as the Chair of the Compensation Committee.






	4.	 	The Chairman of the Audit Committee receives an additional cash retainer of $35,000, payable
in quarterly installments of $8,750 on the last business day of each fiscal quarter, for
service as the Chair of the Audit Committee.






	5.	 	Non-management directors may elect to have any of their cash retainers paid in the form of
stock units in lieu of cash.






	6.	 	For fiscal 2007, each non-management director shall receive an additional stock grant equal
to $5,000.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

 36

 38

 40

 42

▲★

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲

▲

▲

▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 2000

 1000

18 12 06 00

07/18

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 18 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.92 N 77.01 W Meters AGL
Bruce J. TAYLOR, Appellant, v. Tracy COLIN, Respondent.

WD 81228

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: June 18, 2019

Bruce J. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.

Tracy Colin, Respondent Pro Se.

Before Division One: Victor C. Howard, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge

**ORDER**

Per curiam:

Appellant Bruce Taylor appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County following a bench trial on a claim of breach of contract. On appeal Taylor alleges that the circuit court erred in disregarding evidence that, as a contractor, he must be paid in full for services rendered. For reasons explained more fully in a memorandum provided to the parties, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , 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.

September 6, 2016

t0829 

# Order

Clerk September 6, 2016

151767 (15)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 151767

COA: 326368

Wayne CC: 74

- 000772

- FC

JEROME HOLLOWAY,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s May 24, 2016

order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was

entered erroneously.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation Date Staff Contact 

Information (Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization (Attach list of all attendees names and emails if possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, reporting requirements, etc.) 

Written Comments Provided? Did they alssubmit to D

7/29/10 Email Correspondence 

Toby Mandel, ICF International, tmandel@icfi.com 202-862-1566 on behalf of EPA under Contract EP-W-07-068, Task Order 68 

Robert Russell RJR Consulting rjrussell1280@msn.com

(614) 322-9450 

Question: Approximately what percentage of closed-cell foam importers are also the manufacturers of that foam? Response: • As we have described to EPA before there is not 

going to be much closed cell foam imported. Most if not all products are available in the U.S. 

• Expensive to pay freight on high-cube, low 

weight products like foam 

• What small amount is being imported is likely 

being done by manufacturers to handle specific product outages or to augment a product line with a product that is specifically not made in the US. Another reason would be to "test market" whether a certain product would be successful in the U.S. market before commitments to add that SKU on a U.S. plant. My estimate would be that 80% would be brought in by manufacturers and 20% by distributors or OEMs. Insulated closed-cell foams used in refrigerators would be the one exception to this split. Not sure of finished refrigerators are within the scope of your question, but there it is all being imported by the appliance manufacturers in fully finished units. 

Question:

If the importers are not manufacturers, how readily 

N/A 
can they obtain data on the type and amount of 

blowing agent used for that foam? Response: • The importer would need to know who the 

manufacturer is. Sometimes the BA type can be gleened from the MSDS (Material safety Data Sheet). Some manufacturers would not disclose this to a customer calling-in. So it is possible to get, but would likely require various amounts of effort based on: What the product is? Who's asking? The amount of business done between them and the relationship. If it becomes an EPA requirement, the purchaser can always make it a needed piece of information for being able to buy product in the U.S.
**Exhibit 32.2**

Certification of CFO under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*
|          |                                              | *By: /s/ John F. Coger* |                |
|----------|---------------------------------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------|
|     |                                              |
|     | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer |
|     | and Chief Operating Officer                       |
|     |                                              |
| * * | * *                                          | *Date:*                 | *November 10, 2006* | * * |
|          |                                                   |                         |                     |  |  |

 

----
exh10-8.htm


     

    
      

      

    

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    EXHIBIT
      10.8

     

    CONVERTIBLE
      PROMISSORY NOTE ISSUED BY PARK CUMMINGS MINING
      COMPANY

    TO
      PARK-PREMIER MINING COMPANY DATED JANUARY 1, 2004

    
 

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    CONVERTIBLE
      PROMISSORY NOTE

    


    $440,344.34                                                                                                                        Denver,
      Colorado

                                                                January
      1,
      2004

     

          FOR
      VALUE
      RECEIVED, PARK CUMMINGS MINING COMPANY, a Utah corporation (the "Maker"), herby
      promises to pay to the order of
      Park-Premier Mining Company (the “Holder”), the principal sum of Four
      Hundred Forty Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Four and 34/100 US Dollars
      ($440,334.34), together with interest on the unpaid balance at the rate of
      Twelve Percent (12%) per annum, on or before January 1, 2007, subject to
      conversion as described below.

    


    The
      Note is subject to prepayment, in
      whole or in part, at the option of the Maker without penalty.  Such
      prepayments shall be applied first to interest accrued and then to the principal
      due hereunder.

    


    In
      case the Note shall not be paid in
      full whenever it shall become due, the Maker agrees to pay all costs and
      expenses of collection including reasonable attorney’s fees, not to exceed 15%
      of the unpaid balance.

    


    All
      rights and obligations hereunder
      shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado.

    


    This
      Note is unsecured.

    


    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has
      signed his Note effective as of the date first above written.

    


    PARK-CUMMINGS
      MINING
      COMPANY

    


    By:    /s/
      Robert
      W. Dunlap

    Its:     President

    Description:  Expense
      advances
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-30461

Conference Calendar

 

BEN ALAN SNIPES,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHARLES COOK, Sheriff Ouachita Parish; 

TURNER, Captain, Warden Ouachita Parish Jail,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 98-CV-642

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

February 16, 2000

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ben Alan Snipes (#532325), proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal as

frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Snipes’ request for

consolidation of the instant appeal with No. 98-30737 is DENIED

as moot.

Although a pretrial detainee may not be subjected to

conditions of confinement that constitute punishment, Hamilton v. 
No. 99-30461

-2-

Lyons, 74 F.3d 99, 103 (5th Cir. 1996)(citing Bell v. Wolfish,

441 U.S. 520, 535 (1979), negligent inaction does not trigger the

protections of the Due Process Clause. See Davidson v. Cannon,

474 U.S. 344, 348 (1986). Snipes did not allege or produce

evidence that the appellees acted with punitive intent. Snipes’

allegations do not state a constitutional violation. See

Davidson, 474 U.S. at 348. Snipes’ allegations that the

appellees threatened him do not state a constitutional violation. 

See Bender v. Brumley, 1 F.3d 271, 274 n.4 (5th Cir. 1993)

(pretrial detainee)(allegations of verbal abuse and threats by

prison officials do not state a claim under § 1983). 

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment on alternate

grounds. See Bickford v. Int’l Speedway, 654 F.2d 1028, 131 (5th

Cir. 1981).

Snipes now has five strikes. See Snipes v. Cook, No. 98-

30737 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 1999); Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d

383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996)(affirmance of district court’s dismissal

as frivolous counts as a single strike). Except for cases

involving an imminent danger of serious physical injury, Snipes

is BARRED under § 1915(g) from proceeding further under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915. 

AFFIRMED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR ORDERED; MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE APPEALS DENIED.
Exhibit 32.2  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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of ANTIVIRAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A, for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), I, Cheng Kin Chung, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.    By: /s/ Cheng Kin Chung, Chief Financial Officer  Date: December 31, 2010
burden of establishing that relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial 

Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). 

Petitioners argue that the district court was compelled to 

grant their motion for dismissal on the ground of real party in interest's 

noncompliance with the mandatory early case conference meeting and 

report under NRCP 16.1. Petitioners further argue that the district court 

abused its discretion in failing to consider the factors set out in Arnold ix 

Kip, 123 Nev. 410,168 P.3d 1050 (2007), in ruling on their motion. 

Here, the district court explicitly found that extraordinary 

circumstances existed to compel the extension of the NRCP 16.1 deadlines. 

See NRCP 16.1(b) (providing that dismissal is not appropriate where 

extraordinary circumstances warrant extending the applicable deadline). 

In finding that extraordinary circumstances warranted extending the 

deadlines for conducting and reporting on an early case conference, we 

conclude that the district court satisfied Arnold's requirement of 

considering factors related to the purpose of the rule. See Arnold, 123 

Nev. at 415-16, 168 P.3d at 1053 (providing a nonexhaustive list of 

factors); Dornbach v. Tenth Judicial Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. , 324 P.3d 

369, 373 (2014) (recognizing that a district court can properly exercise its 

discretion in ruling on an NRCP 16.1(e) motion even if it does not 

expressly enumerate the Arnold factors). Further, the district court noted 

the basic policy of deciding cases on their merits, which this court 

recognizes as a guide to the proper exercise of discretion. Dornbach, 130 

Nev. at , 324 P.3d at 373. 

As the district court entered findings in support of its order 

denying petitioners' motion to dismiss and ruled in accordance with the 

purpose of the rule and the general policy favoring adjudication on the 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
merits, we conclude that the district court did not exercise its discretion 

arbitrarily or capriciously and that petitioners have not demonstrated that 

extraordinary relief is warranted. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Dornbach, 130 Nev. 

at , 324 P.3d at 374; Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, 

we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

/ 

Hardesty 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge 

Mandelbaum, Ellerton & McBride 

E. Brent Bryson 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A ea
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2


     CERTIFICATIONS OF CFO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


                                 CERTIFICATIONS

I, Russell R. Lee III certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of SinoFresh HealthCare,
Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 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;

c) 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;

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information;

b) 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.

/s/ Russell R. Lee III
--------------------------
Russell R. Lee III
Chief Financial Officer
August 13, 2004