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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BULL RUN CORPORATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          57,579
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,127,260
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,765,761
<PP&E>                                          37,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                  24,193
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              95,195,331
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,690,978
<BONDS>                                     51,848,547
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       228,362
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,562,381
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                95,195,331
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,617,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,246,693
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,984,053)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,599,445
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,278,608
<DISCONTINUED>                                  80,950
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,359,558
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Kevin M. SABO, Esquire. A Member of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

No. 00-BG-28.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

Filed July 3, 2003.

Before: SCHWELB, GLICKMAN, and WASHINGTON, Associate Judges.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

On consideration of the affidavit of Kevin M. Sabo, wherein he consents to disbarment from the Bar of the District of Columbia pursuant to § 12 of Rule XI of the Rules Governing the Bar of the District of Columbia, which affidavit has been filed with the Clerk of this Court, and the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility with respect thereto, it is this 3rd day of July, 2003

ORDERED that the said Kevin M. Sabo, is hereby disbarred by consent *nunc pro tune*to May 19, 2003, the date respondent filed the required D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Bar Counsel’s petition for discipline based upon respondent’s criminal conviction in the Circuit Court of Arlington County, Virginia is hereby dismissed as moot.

■ The Clerk shall publish this order, but the affidavit shall not be publicly disclosed or otherwise made available except upon order of the Court or upon written consent of the respondent.

The Clerk shall cause a copy of this order to be transmitted to the Chairman of the Board on Professional Responsibility and to the respondent, thereby giving him notice of the provisions of Rule XI, §§14 and 16, which set forth certain rights and responsibilities of disbarred attorneys and the effect of failure to comply therewith.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 201 (Wednesday, October 19, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60748]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20895]



[[Page 60748]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Parts 2 and 33

[Docket No. RM05-34-000]


Transactions Subject to FPA Section 203; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission published in the 
Federal Register of October 7, 2005, a document concerning revisions to 
18 CFR parts 2 and 33 to implement amended section 203 of the Federal 
Power Act. Footnote 4 inadvertently references February 3, 2006 instead 
of February 8, 2006. This document corrects that error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah McWane (Legal Information), 
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 
888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, (202) 502-8372.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
published in the Federal Register of October 7, 2005 (70 FR 58636), a 
document concerning revisions to 18 CFR parts 2 and 33 to implement 
amended section 203 of the Federal Power Act. Footnote 4 inadvertently 
references February 3, 2006 instead of February 8, 2006. This document 
corrects that error.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 05-20311, beginning on page 58636 in the 
issue of October 7, 2005, make the following correction. On page 58636, 
in the second column, paragraph 1, footnote 4 is revised to read: ``As 
noted below, EPAct 2005's amendments to FPA section 203 will not take 
effect until February 8, 2006. We will generally refer to EPAct 2005's 
amended section 203 of the FPA as `amended section 203.' All other 
references to FPA section 203 are as it currently exists.''

    Dated: October 14, 2005.
Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-20895 Filed 10-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter ended September 30, 2009 (the Report) by OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the Company), I, Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|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: |  | November 23, 2009 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Albert J. Finch                     
|      |  |                   |  |  |  |     |  | Albert J. Finch, Chief Executive Officer
In the MATTER OF Shannon Dewayne PATTERSON.

S19Y0466

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Decided: January 22, 2019

Warren Raymond Hinds WARREN R. HINDS, P.C. Crossville Village Office Park 1303 Macy Drive Roswell, Georgia 30076, for Appellant.

Paula J. Frederick, General Counsel, Jenny K. Mittelman, Andreea N. Morrison, Assistant General Counsel, STATE BAR OF GEORGIA, 104 Marietta Street, N.W., Suite 100, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2934, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In November 2017, Shannon DeWayne Patterson (State Bar No. 173418) pled guilty in federal district court to one count of aiding and assisting in the preparation and presentation of a false tax return, in violation of 26 USC § 7206 (2). See *United States v. Patterson*, No. 1:17-CR-00413-WO (M.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2017). On May 21, 2018, this Court granted Patterson's petition requesting an interim suspension of his license to practice law pending his sentencing and ordered that he be suspended until further order of this Court. See *In the Matter of Patterson*, 303 Ga. 750, 814 S.E.2d 729 (2018). On September 27, 2018, the federal district court sentenced Patterson, who has been a member of the State Bar of Georgia since 2006, to 13 months of incarceration, followed by one year of supervised release. The court further ordered him to pay restitution in the sum of $60,800. Patterson subsequently filed the underlying petition for voluntary surrender of license, admitting that he has violated Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, which makes it a disciplinary violation "for a lawyer to ... be convicted of a felony." See Bar Rule 4-102 (d). The State Bar has responded, requesting that the Court accept the petition and indicating that a surrender of license, which is tantamount to disbarment, is appropriate and in the best interests of the public and the Bar.

Based on our review of the petition, we agree that acceptance of Patterson's petition is in the best interests of the Bar and the public. Accordingly, the name of Shannon Dewayne Patterson is hereby removed from the rolls of persons entitled to practice law in the State of Georgia.

*Voluntary surrender of license accepted.*

All the Justices concur.
#### WILLIE L. VINCENT v. ARTHUR H. VINCENT

No. 7328DC393

(Filed 11 July 1973)

Appeal and Error § 39 — expiration of initial time for docketing — further extension of time for docketing

After the time for docketing the record on appeal in the Court of Appeals has expired, the trial tribunal is without authority to enter a valid order extending the time for docketing.

Appeal by defendant from *Weaver, District Judge,*11 December 1972 Session of District Court held in BUNCOMBE County.

, Civil action for alimony without divorce. The jury answered issues in favor of plaintiff, finding that she is the dependent spouse and defendant is the supporting spouse, that defendant has abandoned plaintiff, has wilfully failed to provide her with necessary subsistence according to his means, and has offered such indignities to her person as to render her condition intolerable and her life burdensome. The trial court heard evidence and made findings of fact with regard to plaintiff’s needs and defendant’s income and ability to pay alimony. From judgment awarding plaintiff alimony and directing defendant to pay a fee to plaintiff’s attorneys for their services in this action, defendant gave notice of appeal.

*Morris, Golding, Blue & Phillips, by James N. Golding for plaintiff appellee.*

*Robert L. Harrell, Joseph C. Reynolds and Earl J. Fowler, Jr., for defendant appellant.*

PARKER, Judge.

The judgment appealed from was dated 15 December 1972. The record on appeal was not docketed in the Court of Appeals and no order extending the time for docketing was entered within 90 days after the date of the judgment. After the expiration of the 90-day period, and on 21 March 1973, the trial judge signed an order purporting to extend the time for docketing. After the time for docketing the record on appeal in the Court of Appeals has expired, the trial tribunal is without authority to enter a valid order extending the time for docketing, and this appeal is therefore subject to dismissal. *State v. Lee,*15 N.C. App. 234, 189 S.E. 2d 505; *Simmons v. Textile Workers*
      *669
      *Union,*15 N.C. App. 220, 189 S.E. 2d 556; *Distributing Corp. v. Parts, Inc.,*10 N.C. App. 737, 179 S.E. 2d 793; *Dixon v. Dixon,*6 N.C. App. 623, 170 S.E. 2d 561; *Roberts v. Stewart*and *Newton v. Stewart,*3 N.C. App. 120, 164 S.E. 2d 58.

Nevertheless, we have carefully reviewed the record and have considered such of the assignments of error as are properly set forth therein and in support of which any argument is stated or authority cited in appellant’s brief. We find no prejudicial error sufficient to warrant granting a new trial. No abuse of discretion by the trial judge in fixing the amount of the alimony and counsel fees has been shown.

Appeal dismissed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
**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 Quarterly Report of River Rock Entertainment Authority (the “Authority”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Yuan Fang (Yvonne) Mao, Chief Financial Officer of the Authority, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

 	   (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Authority. 

By: /s/ Yuan Fang (Yvonne) MaoYuan Fang (Yvonne) Mao Chief Financial Officer November 15, 2004****

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the River Rock Entertainment Authority and will be retained by the River Rock Entertainment Authority and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER



In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Beacon Financial Futures Fund, L.P. (the Partnership), for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mark S. Stratton, the Chief Executive Officer of Beacon Management Corporation (USA) as General Partner of the
Partnership, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (i) 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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



THE BEACON FINANCIAL FUTURES FUND, L.P.By: Beacon Management Corporation (USA), General Partner of the PartnershipBy:

/s/ Mark S. StrattonMark S. StrattonChief Executive OfficerAugust 15, 2005




The foregoing certification is
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), or otherwise subject to liability under that Section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act except to the extent that this Exhibit 32 is expressly and specifically incorporated by reference in any such filing.



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



E-4
Exhibit
      31.2





CERTIFICATION








I,
      Wang
      Xin, certify that:





1.
      I have
      reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of China Architectural Engineering, 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; and




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; and





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 the 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; and





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/
      Wang Xin


Wang
      Xin


Chief
      Financial Officer


May
      15,
      2007
#### AGRICULTURAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF WATERTOWN, N. Y., a Corporation, Appellant, *v.*NORMAN BILTZ, Respondent. WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, a Corporation, Appellant, *v.*NORMAN BILTZ, Respondent.

Nos. 3154, 3155

April 8,1937.

June 3, 1937.

64 P. (2d) 568.

*L. D. Summerfield,*for Appellants.

*George Springmeyer*and *Douglas A. Busey,*for Respondent.

*Per Curiam:*

The petition of appellant for a rehearing in the above-entitled cause is hereby denied.

The petition of respondent for a rehearing in said cause is hereby granted, limited solely to the question of costs on appeal.

On Rehearing

*390
      *L. D. Summerfield,*for Appellants.

*George Springmeyer, Douglas A. Busey,*and *Bruce Thompson,*for Respondent.

OPINION

By the Court,

Ducker, J.:

A rehearing was granted respondent on the sole question of costs on appeal. In our original opinions the judgments of the lower court were modified and no orders were made in reference to the costs on appeal. 57 Nev. 370, 64 P. (2d) 1042; 57 Nev. 388, 64 P. (2d) 1048. Consequently under the statute (section 8928 N. C. L.), unless we now order otherwise, appellants are entitled to have as costs the entire expense of preparing the transcript of the record on appeal and in presenting the matter to this court, having obtained some relief. In deciding the cases we inadvertently omitted making orders as to costs. Hence the granting of this rehearing.

Respondents contend that as the judgments were reduced in very small amounts and the point on which the reductions were ordered were presented on the judgment roll, appellants should be allowed only such costs as were incident to the proper presentation of that point. He concedes that they should be allowed costs for such portions of the briefs as were devoted to the question of mileage of witnesses — a question stipulated for decision to this court.

*391Appellants obtained no relief on the appeals from the orders denying their motions for new trials. The judgments against them for $5,000, with interest thereon at the legal rate from April 6, 1935, were, by our decisions, modified to the extent of allowing such interest only from March 5, 1936, the date of judgment.

We are satisfied that this court is not without jurisdiction to exercise its discretion and make an order as to costs on appeal.

Considering the relatively small change made in the judgments by our orders of modification, together with all the circumstances of the cases, we believe that it is equitable that appellants should have costs only for clerk’s fees; for typewriting judgment roll, notices of appeal, and waivers of undertaking on appeal; and for typewriting that portion of opening and closing briefs pertaining to interest and mileage.

It is so ordered, and that our original opinions be, and they are hereby, modified to such extent.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5141 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5141

   To repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for 
   payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 26, 2010

  Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal the expansion of information reporting requirements for 
   payments of $600 or more to corporations, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Small Business Paperwork Mandate 
Elimination Act''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXPANSION OF INFORMATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

    Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and 
the amendments made thereby, are hereby repealed; and the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied as if such section, and 
amendments, had never been enacted.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Quarterly Report of Investment Properties Associates (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Robert Hecht,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss. 1350, as adopted  pursuant to ss. 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.

/s/ Robert Hecht
-----------------------------------------
Robert Hecht

Chief Financial Officer
November 13, 2002