alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Benton Bledsoe et al. v. Gonzales County.

Where the defendant objected to a witness, to prove damages in not finishing work according to contract, on the ground that an architect was to determine the measure of damages, and the architect had not been called, but the contract only stipulated that the payments should be made on the certificate of the architect that he approved the work, the objection to the evidence was not well taken.

Error from Gonzales. The case was tried before Hon. J. J. Holt, one of the district judges.

The suit was upon a bond to secure the building of a court-house, according to contract, plan, and specifications. The work was to be done according to certain specifications, and the payments were to be made upon the certificates of Payne of his approval of the quality of the work; but it was not specified that, should there be a failure, Payne should certify or assess the damages. The county court reserved the right to annul the contract. The breaches assigned were the non-performance of the contract in *637not finishing the house in certain particulars. There was no question about the quality of the work already performed. When witnesses were called to testify as to the damages by non-performance, or rather what it would cost to finish, the defendants objected to anybody proving this but Payne. The court overruled the objection, to which the defendants excepted. There was no statement of facts. There were a verdict and judgment against the defendants, and they prosecuted error.

*Albert N.*Mills, for plaintiffs in error.

—The contract provided a mode by which the value of the unfinished work and unused materials should be ascertained. This mode was a part of the agreement.

An architect was selected to overlook the work, draw the plan, specifications, and the like. He (Payne) was the party agreed upon, when the contract was made, who should find the value of the unfinished work or what it would cost to complete it. He was peculiarly the best judge, and for that reason he was selected.

Payne was not called as a witness, he was not proved dead, or not within the jurisdiction of the court.

Ho brief for defendant in error has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

Morrill, 0. J.

—Suit by the defendants in error against the plaintiffs and others for violation of a contract for the erection of a court-house, and judgment for $2,000.

The only error assigned and relied on is, that the- plaintiffs were permitted to prove by Darst and Grayson the cost of finishing the court-house agreeably to specification, instead of Payne, the architect.

The contract specified that the work was to be done to the satisfaction of Charles Payne, the architect, and to be testified by a writing under the hand of Payne. The non-*638production of this certificate of Payne furnishes one of the causes of action. The appeal appears to have been taken for delay. ■

Aeeirmed with damages.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directors 

Coldwater Creek Inc.: 

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-82260, 333-60099, and 333-31699) on Forms S-8 of Coldwater Creek Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated March 10, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet ofColdwater Creek Inc. and subsidiaries as of February 1, 2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the eleven-month transition period ended February 1, 2003, which report appears in theFebruary 1, 2003, transition report on Form 10-K of Coldwater Creek Inc. 

 

Our report refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to the common stock outstanding, retained earnings, and net income per share amounts, as well as certain amounts in the 1996 stock option plan and employee stockpurchase plan disclosures, to revise the fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2000 consolidated financial statements to reflect a 3-for-2 stock split declared by the Board of Directors on December 19, 2002, as more fully described in Note 2 to the consolidatedfinancial statements. However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2000 consolidated financial statements other than with respect to such adjustments. 

 

KPMG LLP 

 

Boise, Idaho 

April 24, 2003
EXHIBIT 11.1


                      COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED
                      NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE FOR
            THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 AND 2002

     The following calculation is submitted in accordance with
requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934:

                                          For the three    For the six
                                          months ended     months ended
                                              June 30,       June 30,
                                          -----------------------------
                                           2003   2002    2003    2002
                                          -----------------------------
Basic net income (loss) per share:
------------------------------------------
Weighted average common shares outstanding   7,712  7,361  7,655  7,349
                                          =============================

 Net income (loss) from continuing
   operations                             ($1,164)  $575    $428 $1,180

 Basic net income (loss) from continuing
  operations per share                     ($0.15) $0.08   $0.06  $0.16

 Loss from discontinued operations              -  ($234)    $72  ($229)
 Basic loss from discontinued
   operations per share                         - ($0.03) ($0.01)($0.03)

 Net income (loss)                        ($1,164)  $341    $356   $951
 Basic net income (loss) per share         ($0.15) $0.05   $0.05  $0.13

Diluted net income (loss) per share:
-----------------------------------------
 Weighted average common shares
  outstanding                               7,712  7,361   7,655  7,349

 Common stock equivalents - stock options
  and warrants                                  -    344      61    343
                                          -----------------------------
Total weighted average number of diluted
 Shares                                     7,712  7,705   7,716  7,692
                                          =============================

  Net income (loss) from continuing
   operations                             ($1,164)  $575    $428 $1,180

  Diluted net income (loss) from
   continuing operations per share         ($0.15) $0.07   $0.06  $0.15


  Loss from discontinued operations             -  ($234)   ($72) ($229)
  Diluted loss from discontinued
   operations per share                         - ($0.03) ($0.01)($0.03)

  Net income (loss)                       ($1,164)  $341    $356   $951
  Diluted net income (loss) per share      ($0.15) $0.04   $0.05  $0.12
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions that

have no pre cedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-40220

Summary Calendar

RICKEY HART, ET AL.,

Plaintiff,

WILLIAM ROBERT PARKER, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CHIEF BEDDINGFIELD, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

(6:93-CV-651)

(May 19, 1995)

Before GARWOOD, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Parker abandoned his due process claim by failing to brief it

on appeal. Because the change in the law of good time credits

benefited Parker, and the state restored his good time credits, he

has alleged no violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC
ACCOUNTANTS





As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our report dated April 10, 2002, included in
Coldwater Creek Inc.s Form 10-K for the year ended March 2, 2002 into Coldwater Creek Inc.s previously filed Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-82260); the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-60099); and the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-31699).





/S/    ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP





Boise, Idaho


May 6, 2002
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





I, George
E. Strickler, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer,
of Stoneridge, Inc. (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 on Form 10-Q of the Company for the second quarter ended June 30, 2009
(“the Report”) which this certification accompanies fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ George E. StricklerGeorge
      E. Strickler, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
      TreasurerAugust
      4, 2009





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5773 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building located at 6401 Security 

Boulevard in Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as 

the Social Security Administration Operations Building, 

as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5773 EH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building located at 6401 Security Boule3 vard in Baltimore, Maryland, commonly known as the So4 cial Security Administration Operations Building, shall be 

5 known and designated as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal 

6 Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

11 a reference to the ‘‘Robert M. Ball Federal Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 15, 

2010. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5773 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building located at 6401 

Federal Building’’. tion Operations Building, as the ‘‘Robert M. Ball monly known as the Social Security AdministraSecurity Boulevard in Baltimore, Maryland, com-
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5724 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5724

  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal 
                responsibility for stormwater pollution.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 13, 2010

   Ms. Norton (for herself, Mr. Moran of Virginia, and Ms. Giffords) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                   Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify Federal 
                responsibility for stormwater pollution.

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

SECTION 1. FEDERAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR STORMWATER POLLUTION.

    Section 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
1323) is amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(c) Federal Responsibility for Stormwater Pollution.--Reasonable 
service charges described in subsection (a) include reasonable fees or 
assessments made for the purpose of stormwater management in the same 
manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
    ``(d) No Treatment as Tax or Levy.--A fee or assessment described 
in this section--
            ``(1) shall not be considered to be a tax or other levy 
        subject to an assertion of sovereign immunity; and
            ``(2) may be paid using appropriated funds.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      58,638,326
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               80,931,586
<ALLOWANCES>                              (31,981,818)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           118,931,633
<PP&E>                                      50,630,057
<DEPRECIATION>                            (10,415,163)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             323,383,136
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,327,629
<BONDS>                                    100,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       239,269
<OTHER-SE>                                 177,338,853
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               323,383,136
<SALES>                                    145,646,752
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           145,646,752
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           131,522,032
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,382,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             12,742,120
<INCOME-TAX>                                 4,545,904
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,196,216
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 8,196,216
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

U.S, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARI)

I.'NITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

MARCUS DUNGAN

Respondent

Docket Number 2 023 -0120

Enforcement Activity No. 7647141

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: June 6. 2023

Bv Administrative Law Judse: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appearances:

CWO John Colon

USCG Detached Duty Office Fort Myers

For the Coast Guard

Marcus Dungan, Pro Se

For Respondent
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about May 25,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval ol

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDER-ED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated Jwe 6,2023, at

Alameda, Califomia

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
#### In the Matter of Bloomingdale Brothers, a Division of Federated Department Stores, Inc., Petitioner, v Roderick G. W. Chu et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission of the Department of Taxation and Finance of the State of New York, Respondents.

No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion, ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Did this court err as a matter of law in annulling the determination, granting the petition and remitting the matter to respondents for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court’s decision”. Kane, J. P., Casey, Mikoll and Levine, JJ., concur.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service 

          - 26 CFR Part 1 
          - [REG-116048-99] 
          - RIN 1545-AX63 

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. 

# ACTION:

Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed rulemaking. 

# SUMMARY:

This document provides notice of cancellation of a public hearing on proposed regulations relating to supplemental rules for stock transfers.

# DATES:

The public hearing originally scheduled for Thursday, April 20, 2000, at 10 a.m., is canceled. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Guy Traynor of the Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7180 (not a toll-free number). 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of                           ( print page 20404)                        public hearing that appeared in the                     **Federal Register**                     on January 24, 2000, (65 FR 3629), announced that a public hearing was scheduled for April 20, 2000 at 10 a.m., in room 2615, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC. The subject of the public hearing is proposed regulations under section 367(b), of the Internal Revenue Code. The deadline for requests to speak and outlines of oral comments expired on March 31, 2000.                 

The notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing, instructed those interested in testifying at the public hearing to submit a request to speak and an outline of the topics to be addressed. As of April 11, 2000, no one has requested to speak. Therefore, the public hearing scheduled for April 20, 2000, is cancelled. 

Cynthia E. Grigsby, 

Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate). 

[FR Doc. 00-9409 Filed 4-14-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
---

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

The undersigned, Si Chen, the Chief Executive Officer of
AMERICAN LORAIN CORPORATION (the Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY that:

| | 1. | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
      year ended December 31, 2010 (the Report), fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) 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 operation of
      the Company.                                                       

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this
statement this 31st day of March 2011.

/s/ Si Chen Si Chen Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

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

The forgoing certification is being furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general
incorporation language in such filing.

---
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 annual report of Trycera Financial, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-1 for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned principal executive officer of the Company,
hereby certifies 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 results of
          operations of the Company.



Date:  April 25, 2007

/S/ Matthew S. Kerper
----------------------------
Matthew S. Kerper, President
(Principal executive officer)