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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE QUINTEL
ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENT AS
PRESENTED IN THE COMPANY'S FORM 10K FOR THE YEAR ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,123,630
<SECURITIES>                                15,019,233
<RECEIVABLES>                               31,230,579
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            63,269,243
<PP&E>                                       1,661,429
<DEPRECIATION>                                 517,528
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              64,413,144
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       27,731,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,679
<OTHER-SE>                                  36,665,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                64,413,144
<SALES>                                     94,690,251
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            94,690,251
<CGS>                                       80,037,115
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               80,037,115
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            34,049,435
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             186,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,370,082)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (417,464)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (19,396,299)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,952,618)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.00)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 23.1

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement of
Home Health Corporation of America, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8 of our
report dated September 2, 1998, except for paragraph 1 of note 5, for which the
date is September 23, 1998, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements and financial statement schedule of the Company as of June 30, 1997
and 1998, and for each of the three years in the period ended June 30, 1998,
which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

2400 Eleven Penn Center
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
September 23, 1998
# C_2019348EN.01000301.xml

| 14.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 348/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 348/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 20 June 2019 — Middlegate Europe NV v Ministerraad

(Case C-471/19)

(2019/C 348/04)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Grondwettelijk Hof

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Middlegate Europe NV

Respondent: Ministerraad

Questions referred

| 1. | Should Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 56 of that Treaty, with Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principle of equality, be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions that oblige persons or undertakings which, in a Belgian port area, wish to engage in dock-work activities within the meaning of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid (Law of 8 June 1972 organising dock work) — including activities which, strictly speaking, are unrelated to the loading and unloading of ships — to have recourse solely to recognised dockers? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Should Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 56 of that Treaty, with Articles 15 and 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and with the principle of equality, be interpreted as precluding national legislative provisions that oblige persons or undertakings which, in a Belgian port area, wish to engage in dock-work activities within the meaning of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid (Law of 8 June 1972 organising dock work) — including activities which, strictly speaking, are unrelated to the loading and unloading of ships — to have recourse solely to recognised dockers?

| 2. | If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the Grondwettelijk Hof provisionally maintain the effects of Articles 1 and 2 of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid in order to prevent legal uncertainty and social discontent and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into line with the obligations arising from EU law? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, may the Grondwettelijk Hof provisionally maintain the effects of Articles 1 and 2 of the wet van 8 juni 1972 betreffende de havenarbeid in order to prevent legal uncertainty and social discontent and to enable the legislature to bring those provisions into line with the obligations arising from EU law?

---
##### 



Exhibit 13.2 Certification
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Lihir Gold Limited, a Papua New Guinea corporation (the
Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that: The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in
the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company. Dated: 29 June 2004 /s/ Paul FultonName:
    Paul FultonTitle:
    General Manager Commercial
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001031002
<NAME>                        MERRILL LYNCH PREFERRED FUNDING II, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-24-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                   363,922
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,204
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               371,126
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 371,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,204
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    309,278
<COMMON>                                        54,644
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   371,126
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,746
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,746
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,746
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,746
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### DARRIN, Appellant, v. HOPPER, Respondent.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

Action by Ira G. Darrin, as receiver, against Isaac A. Hopper. H. A. Sperry, for appellant. L. S. L’Amoreaux, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Order filed.
Exhibit 23.2

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
Board of Directors
Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc.:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No. 333-121562 on Form S-3 and registration statements (Nos. 333-12025,
333-68128, 333-83650, 333-117137, 333-117070, 333-106647 and 333-128113) on Form S-8 of Impac Mortgage
Holdings, Inc. of our report dated May 13, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive earnings, changes in stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31,
2004, which report appears in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-K of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc..

|                        |  | /s/ KPMG LLP
|----------------------- |  | ------------
|Los Angeles, California |  |             
|March 14, 2006          |  |             

---



QuickLinks
IIA 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 22 

To grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the compact between 

the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the 

Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 28, 2011 

Mrs. MCCASKILL (for herself, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. KIRK, and Mr. BLUNT) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

To grant the consent of Congress to an amendment to the 

compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development 

Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years. 

Whereas to grant the consent of Congress to an amendment 

to the compact between the States of Missouri and Illinois providing that bonds issued by the Bi-State Development Agency may mature in not to exceed 40 years; 

Whereas the Congress in consenting to the compact between 

Missouri and Illinois creating the Bi-State Development 

Agency and the Bi-State Metropolitan District provided 

that no power shall be exercised by the Bi-State Agency 

until such power has been conferred upon the Bi-State 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 22 IS 

Agency by the legislatures of the States to the compact 

and approved by an Act of Congress; 

Whereas such States previously enacted legislation providing 

that the Bi-State Agency had the power to issue notes, 

bonds, or other instruments in writing provided they shall 

mature in not to exceed 30 years, and Congress consented to such power; and 

Whereas such States have now enacted legislation amending 

this power: Now therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. CONSENT. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—The consent of Congress is given 

5 to the amendment of the powers conferred on the Bi-State 

6 Development Agency by Senate Bill 758, Laws of Missouri 

7 2010 and Public Act 96–1520 (Senate Bill 3342), Laws 

8 of Illinois 2010. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment to the pow10 ers conferred by the Acts consented to in subsection (a) 

11 shall take effect on December 17, 2010. 

12 SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF ACT OF AUGUST 31, 1950. 

13 The provisions of the Act of August 31, 1950 (64 

14 Stat. 568) shall apply to the amendment approved under 

15 this joint resolution to the same extent as if such amend16 ment was conferred under the provisions of the compact 

17 consented to in such Act. 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•SJ 22 IS 

1 SEC. 3. RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL. 

2 The right to alter, amend, or repeal this joint resolu3 tion is expressly reserved. 

4 SEC. 4. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. 

5 The right is reserved to Congress to require the dis6 closure and furnishings of such information or data by the 

7 Bi-State Development Agency as is deemed appropriate by 

8 Congress. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit 13 (a)****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted by section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, the undersigned officer of Lihir Gold Limited (the “company”) hereby certifies that:(i) The accompanying annual report on Form 20-F of the company for the annual periodended December 31, 2007 (the “report”) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) The information contained in the report fairly represents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the company.A signed original of this statement has been provided to the company and will be retained by thecompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request./s/  Arthur Hood
#### CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, *ET AL.,*PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, v. TOBY ARMOUR SCHNEIDER, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

June 10, 1960.

*Messrs. Rilcer, Danzig, Marsh & Scherer, Mr. Dickinson R. Debevoise*and *Mr. Richard L. Amster*for the petitioner.

*Messrs. Carpenter, Bennett & Morrissey*and *Mr. Stanley Weiss*for the respondents.

Granted.
#### FREDERICK W. MARGARITELL, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. THE TOWNSHIP OF CALDWELL, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Argued October 25, 1960

Decided November 21, 1960.

*Mr. Simon Easdin*argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant.

*Mr. Warren E. Dunn*argued the cause for defendant-respondent *(Messrs. Lum, Fairlie and Foster,*attorneys; *Mr. Robert W. Brady*and *Mr. Dunn*of counsel; *Mr. Theodore D. Abeles*on the brief).

Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed for the reasons expressed in the opinion of Judge Scherer in the Chancery Division reported at 58 *N. J. Super.*251. The paragraph thereof (58 *N. J. Super.,*at *p.*261) suggesting a possible purpose for the repeal in 1953 of the statute here involved and intimating an effect of the enactment of the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act of 1948 *(N. J. S. A.*54:5-104.29, *et seq.)*on prior methods for the foreclosure of tax liens is not necessary to the decision and we express no view with respect thereto.

*For affirmance*— Chief Justice Weintraub, and Justices Francis, Proctor, Hall and Schettino — 5.

*For reversal*— None.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

!lonom,bls J. Ii. Jones County AUditor Aiohita 

### Palls,Tsxaa 

### DearSir: February20, 1939 

# A Opinion I::,. O-30 Ho1Xn:n41 moo tax Ifaupport * oounty ho al.



### Imticlo4478 I?.

3. 1925 and collect taxes for the established nnd

**lows 1**  Article\$ Xov%>ntuLes, 

### providesin part as fol**suhit** to such votora at a speciul or regular election t1:e ?ropoaitlon cf ionuin; bonds in such orw.roi;ate mount ac uay be desisnnted in said petition for the ostnblichinC or onlariing of suoh hoopit:tl. Lhoncver shy such proposition shall 

### receivea i;iaJority of the votes of tho qualified 

### propertytax payeravotingat euoh el.eotlon, mid oowim?ionere court shall 

### ilstabllsh and lialntain

suchhospitaland nhalL1

### have the following povcera r I' -..

. ”
_ .’

.
,. i ‘
. i ,‘

,

, Hon. J. .R. Jones, February 20, 1939, ?a.-e 2

“3. To cn\lae to be aemssed, levied rindoolleoted, such tflxos upon the real and porso:ir;l property o~;nod in the ccunty ne it ahnll dem neccssnry to provide the func!s for t!le ::.aintennnce theroof, and for 011 ot:ror necon?ary argcnditures tliorcfor.” In hydler ,v. Dorder, 115 S. Y. (2d) 702, error **re&ed,** the nbove ctntute w-ii?hold to ba constitutional Lnnclthorizln; -t::a ostablish::ient of a countp hos?itnl. .‘,Ba naccsonr;rco;lponent part or the rifiht and poser to ostablieh the hospItn1, the ri,:ht ;:m also ;:iven to tim corr~~lasionern’ oourt to levy taxes for the cmintenance thereof. ‘hs vnlidlty of such provlslon rmld Cm?ubtlesa follow; t:le validity of the statute authorizing the conotluotion of the hoo:litnl.

hrtiale 8, seation 9, Cmstitution of ‘Lexris, provic~es that “no ooun.ty, city or tom shall levy &or0 than %Sgfor city or county purpOsOs.n And Article 2352, Revised Civil ;tatutes, f~llowa the swe \tith the grovision!,bat “said cwrt (oo:~:~isaionars) sknll hive the power to levy and collect a tax for county gur?oses not to exceed 25# on the $100.00 valuation.

Tha lavy of a tax for county purposes t::~lild inolude the li3vy of a tax to itillillt.niIl the3 .hoopltal. In that view, therefore, your question is given an affimiative nnnrier.

TIml;ovor, your attention 3s called to t~?e 1l:tit of 256 on the zlOO.00 valuation for oounty purposes, :lnd 1~6 vo.a16 ;;mtiln t,>nt no tax can be levied for the rnaintennnce, of the hosplt&l. Afoh v~ould !lave the effect of 6wallln:: the levy for genernl ptirpo~:‘es to exceed the 25$ limit. Your8 rory truly

Olenn H. Lewis Aesistant
Case: 1:01-cr-00578 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/22/01 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:1
Case: 1:01-cr-00578 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/22/01 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:2
Case: 1:01-cr-00578 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/22/01 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:3
Case: 1:01-cr-00578 Document #: 1 Filed: 06/22/01 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:4
Exhibit 23.1



|     |  |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | PERCY S. YANG, CPA, ABV KATHLEEN M. ALAMEDA, CPA DEBRA K. DOBLE, CPA LOUISE SALLMANN (RETIRED) _______________  CYNTHIA BROWN, CPA JENNIFER D. CASTELLUCCIO, CPA KAYLEEN J. CLEMENS, CPA DEE MADHAVPEDDI,
CPA MICHAEL R. RAMIL, CPA JOHN M.
ROSENTHAL, CPA PATRICK T. SULLIVAN, CPA GEORGEAN M. VONHEEDER LEOPOLD, EA



December 22, 2005



The Board of Directors and Shareholders

Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc.

19100 S Harbor Drive

Fort Bragg, CA 95437-1918



|Re: | Consent of Independent Registered Public Account Firm
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------



Dear Board of Directors and Shareholders:



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form 10-KSB of our reports dated March 18, 2005, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
Thanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of income, accumulated deficit, and cash flows for each of the three fiscal years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004 reporting as of
December 31, 2004.



If you have any questions, please call.



Very truly yours,



/s/ Sallmann, Yang & Alameda



SALLMANN, YANG & ALAMEDA

An Accountancy Corporation



6601 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 180·Pleasanton, CA
94566-3254·(925) 426-7744·Fax (925)
426-7772·www.syacpa.com

Dedicated
to Your Success Since 1963
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer of Metallurg, Inc.
("Metallurg"), hereby certifies on the date hereof, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350(a), as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003
("Form 10-Q"), filed concurrently herewith by Metallurg, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Metallurg.

Date: August 11, 2003


                                                 /s/ Heinz C. Schimmelbusch
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Heinz C. Schimmelbusch
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Jose Arismendy GUERRERO-SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-41268

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Sept. 16, 2011.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Margaret Christina Ling, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Arismendy Guerrero-Soto has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Guerrero-Soto has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.