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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                              84
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                       179
<INVENTORY>                                        641
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,744
<PP&E>                                           2,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,449
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,887
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,789
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      8,649
<COMMON>                                           139
<OTHER-SE>                                    (25,226)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     9,887
<SALES>                                         32,744
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                32,744
<CGS>                                           28,138
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,002
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 582
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,978)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         6
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,984)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (20,792)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.83)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.83)


</TABLE>
|Exhibit 32.1
|------------

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarter Report of Mantra Venture Group Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended November 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry Kristof, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|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.
| 



|By:/s/ Larry KristofLarry KristofPresident and Chief Executive OfficerJanuary 18, 2008
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
**Exhibit 99.6**

** **
| ** ** | **KPMG LLP**                    | Telephone | (604)  691-3000 |
|------------|---------------------------------|-----------|-----------------|
| ** ** | **Chartered Accountants**       | Fax       | (604)  691-3031 |
|       | Box  10426, 777 Dunsmuir Street | Internet  | www.kpmg.ca     |
|       | Vancouver  BC V7Y 1K3           |      |            |

** **

** **

**CONSENT OFINDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS**

 

 

TheBoard of DirectorsBallard Power Systems Inc.

 

Weconsent to the use of our report dated February 4, 2005 included in this annualreport on Form 40-F.

 

Wealso consent to the use of our report dated February 4, 2005 related to“Comments by Auditor for U.S. Readers on Canada - U.S. Reporting Difference”included on Form 40-F.

 

Wealso consent to the incorporation by reference of such report in theRegistration Statements (Nos. 333-104193, 333-102364, 333-99077, 333-98009,333-97561, 333-97559, 333-89414, 333-89088, 333-89064, 333-108775, 333-11771)on Form S-8 of Ballard Power Systems Inc.

 

 

CharteredAccountants

 

 

Vancouver,Canada

February4, 2005

 

 

KPMG LLP, a Canadian limited liability partnershipis the Canadianmember firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

       
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                              69
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,076
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     24,053
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,649
<PP&E>                                           9,312
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 113,645
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           74,237
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            34
<OTHER-SE>                                      38,478
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   113,645
<SALES>                                        182,871
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,871
<CGS>                                          169,199
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  169,199
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,596
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 467
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,391)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,391)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,391)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.95)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William West, Appellant.

[874 NYS2d 444]

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene Goldberg, J.), rendered December 4, 2006, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of petit larceny and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). Defendant attempted to flee from a shoe store while holding a customer’s handbag under his jacket, as the screaming customer pursued him. We find unpersuasive defendant’s assertion that he may have believed the bag to be store merchandise and that he may have intended to purchase it. In any event, even if he thought the bag was merchandise, his actions manifested an intent to steal it *(see People v Olivo,*52 NY2d 309 [1981]; *People v Stapkowitz,*40 AD3d 435 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 882 [2007]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Moskowitz, Renwick and Freedman, JJ.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPI RES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

RAYMOND M. SHULSTAD, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D15-941 ) MITZI A. SHULSTAD, ) ) Appellee. ) ) Opinion filed May 25, 2016. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ashley B. Moody, Judge. Mark A. Neumaier, Tampa, for Appellant. Bradley J. McDonald and Matthew E. Thatcher of The Solo mon Law Group, P.A., Tampa, for Appellee.

LaROSE, Judge.

Raymond Shulstad appeals the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. He raises four issues; we affirm, without further discussion, a s to three. We write to address his last issue: that the trial court erred in ordering Mr. Shulstad to maintain $750,000 in life insurance coverage to secure his postdissoluti on support obligations. Mitzi Shulstad properly concedes that the trial court erred in ordering an increase in Mr.- 2 - Shulstad's life insurance coverage. We reverse and remand for further proceedings on

this issue. The trial court may require a party to secure child support an d alimony payments with life insurance coverage. However, "the record sh ould contain evidence of the payor's insurability, the cost of the proposed insurance , and the payor's ability to afford the insurance." Lopez v. Lopez, 780 So. 2d 164, 165 (Fl a. 2d DCA 2001); Gordon v. Gordon, 63 So. 3d 824, 827 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (holdi ng that "there must be evidence in the record and findings by the court as to the cost of the insurance being required in order to establish that the obligor can obtain and afford such insurance coverage").

The trial court had evidence before it about the cost and abil ity of Mr. Shulstad to maintain his then-current $500,000 life insurance p olicy. The trial court had no evidence of the cost to increase and Mr. Shulstad's ability to pay for coverage of $750,000. Under the facts of the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by requiring that the former husband maint ain a life insurance policy to secure the alimony awarded to the form er wife. However, the amount of the coverage which the former husband was ordered to maintain lacks a sufficient evidentiary basis—the record contains no evidence of the . . . cost of the proposed insurance, and, thus, the former husband's ability to pay that unspecified cost. Zangari v. Cunningham, 839 So. 2d 918, 920 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) ( citing Lopez, 780 So. 2d at 164). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further p roceedings.

VILLANTI, C.J., and KH OUZAM, J., Concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40389

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ROMONT LACHEA ROBBINS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-140-1

Before JOLLY, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Romont Lachea

Robbins, Jr., has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Robbins 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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 19, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 10-40389 Document: 00511450271 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
No. 10-40389

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 10-40389 Document: 00511450271 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/19/2011
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT
      TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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






Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. §1350 (adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002),
      I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Aftermarket Technology Corp.
      (the
      "Company"), hereby certify that to the best of my knowledge the Annual Report
      on
      Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report")
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
      Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operations of the Company.







Date: March
      1,
      2007








/s/
                Todd R. PetersTodd
                R. Peters, Chief Financial Officer








This
      certification will not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the
      registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
1

The Honorable Thomas B. Wells, Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3861

___________

Perry Tschida, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * Tax Court

*

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: February 19, 2003

 Filed: March 10, 2003 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, MELLOY, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Perry Tschida appeals the tax court’s1

 dismissal of his amended petition for a

lien or levy action under I.R.C. § 6320(c) or § 6330(d). Our de novo review

persuades us that Tschida’s petition was untimely filed. See I.R.C. §§ 6330(d)(1),

7502; Bueford v. Resolution Trust Corp., 991 F.2d 481, 484 (8th Cir. 1993) (standard

of review). Because the untimely filing deprived the tax court of jurisdiction, and

because the court may consider its jurisdiction on its own motion, we conclude that

the tax court properly dismissed the petition. See Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S.
-2-

3, 7 (1987) (per curiam); Bueford, 991 F.2d at 485; Raymond v. Commissioner, No

2354-01L, 2002 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 48 at *5 & n.3 (T. C. Oct. 22, 2002). 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE V. GEORGE P. HARBISON 

DOCKET NUMBER: 30 

DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1941 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ORDER 

UNITED STATES OF AGRICULTURE 

COMMODITY EXCHANGE ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

CE-A Docket No. 30 

Secretary of Agriculture, Complainant, v. George P. Harbison, 507 Duluth Board 

of Trade Building, Duluth, Minnesota, Respondent. 

The following order has been issued in the above entitled matter: 

ORDER

IT IS ORDERED that the registration of the respondent, George P. Harbison, as 

a floor broker for the year 1941, and his registration as a futures commission 

merchant for the year 1941, the latter in the name of Harbison Grain Company, 

be, and they are hereby, suspended for a period of 90 days, beginning on the 

effective date of this order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy hereof be served on the respondent, and 

upon each contract market, by registered mail or in person, and that this order 

shall become effective on December 31, 1941. 

(SEAL) 

Done at Washington, D. C., this 29th day of December 1941. Witness my hand 

and the seal of the Department of Agriculture 

/s/ Grover B. Hill 

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture 

LOAD-DATE: December 15, 2008 
Page 2
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2542

In Re: CHARLES EVERETTE HINTON,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

Submitted: March 26, 2013 Decided: April 5, 2013

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Everette Hinton, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Everette Hinton petitions for a writ of 

mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district 

court to file his civil complaint. Our review of the district 

court’s docket reveals that the court has docketed the

complaint. See Hinton v. Bridges, No. 3:13-cv-00119-RJC (filed 

Jan. 16, 2013; entered Feb. 22, 2013). Accordingly, because 

Hinton has received the relief he requested, we deny as moot the 

mandamus petition. We also deny as moot Hinton’s motion for

reconsideration of the denial of his motion objecting to the 

application of the provisions of the Prison Litigation Reform 

Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b) (2006), to his case. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
**Exhibit 14.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-139174, No. 333-110865, No. 333-110857 and No. 333-90266) of our reportsdated June 20, 2007, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of Technip, Technip management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Technip, included in the Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31,2006.Neuilly-sur-Seine, France
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 Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board 

          - [STB Finance Docket No. 34003] 

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board. 

# ACTION:

Notice of exemption. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Under 49 U.S.C. 10502, the Board conditionally exempts from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 the construction and operation by The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company of a 7                        1/2                        -mile line of railroad between Seadrift and Kamey, TX.                     

# DATES:

The exemption will not become effective until the environmental review process is completed. Once that process is completed, the Board will issue a further decision addressing the environmental matters and establishing an exemption effective date at that time, if appropriate. Petitions to reopen must be filed by July 9, 2001. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34003, to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001; and (2) Erika Z. Jones, Mayer, Brown & Platt, 1909 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 565-1600. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.] 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write to, call, or pick up in person from: Da                    ̄                    -To-Da                    ̄                     Office Solutions, Room 405, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. Telephone: (202) 293-7776. E-mail: Da_To_Da@Hotmail.com. [TDD for the hearing impaired: 1-800-877-8339.]                 

Board decisions and notices are available on our website at “WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.” 

Decided: June 12, 2001. 

By the Board, Chairman Morgan, Vice Chairman Clyburn, and Commissioner Burkes. 

Vernon A. Williams, 

Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 01-15432 Filed 6-18-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
Donald L. MULDER, petitioner, v. Robert A. McDONALD, Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

No. 15-8528.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 21
 SUBSIDIARIES OF AMERIGAS PARTNERS, L.P.
 STATE OFSUBSIDIARY
    
    OWNERSHIP
    
    
    INCORPORATIONAmeriGas Finance Corp.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    DelawareAmeriGas Eagle Finance Corp.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    DelawareAP Eagle Finance Corp.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    DelawareAmeriGas Propane L.P.
    
    
    (1
    )
    
    DelawareAmeriGas Propane Parts & Service, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    PennsylvaniaAmeriGas Eagle Propane, L.P.
    
    
    (2
    )
    
    DelawareAmeriGas Eagle Parts & Service, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    PennsylvaniaAmeriGas Eagle Propane, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    DelawareAmerE Holdings, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    DelawareAmeriGas Eagle Holdings, Inc.
    
    
    100
    %
    
    DelawareActive Propane of Wisconsin, LLC
    
    
    100
    %
    
    Delaware
 (1)
    
    1.0101% owned by AmeriGas Propane, Inc., the General Partner; and 98.9899% owned by
AmeriGas Partners, L.P., the Limited Partner.(2)
    
    99.9% owned by AmeriGas Propane, L.P. and <0.1 % owned by AmeriGas Eagle Holdings,
Inc. (GP) and an unrelated third party.
SEC Exhibit






                                                                                                Exhibit 10.48












June 2015
 Erwin Mayr




Dear Erwin,


Your contributions to Novelis are very important.  In recognition of this, the Company has put in place an enhancement to the existing long-term incentive plan (LTIP). This “Bridge” plan was developed to supplement the LTIP while the new Novelis portion of the Plan matures. This program will provide you with a cash incentive in addition to your other compensation such as your base salary, annual bonus opportunity and long-term incentive opportunity.


The Bridge plan is in place for FY2016 and will be reviewed and considered for FY2017.





You will receive three payments in the total amount of $100,000



First Payment in December 2015        $30,000
Second Payment in December 2016        $30,000
Third Payment in December 2017        $40,000
 


















Because this opportunity is designed to enhance our LTIP as a retention incentive, in the event that you voluntarily terminate your employment prior to December 31, 2018, or are terminated for cause, you will be required to repay any payments made under the Bridge plan in the previous 12 months, less applicable taxes, and you will not be entitled to any other payments thereafter.  If you are terminated involuntarily without cause, any unpaid cash installments will be immediately cancelled, but you will not be required to repay any cash payments you have received.


Your acceptance of any payments under this award shall constitute your acceptance of the terms and  conditions set forth above.


I am very pleased that we are able to offer you this opportunity and I look forward to your continuing to be a key member of the team as we focus on building an even more successful Novelis.


Sincerely,


/s/ Steve Fisher


Steve Fisher
  Interim President & CEO and Senior Vice President and CFO