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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,189
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,138
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 7,151
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      5,949
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          22,622
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            22,608
<LOANS>                                         34,882
<ALLOWANCE>                                        391
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  74,825
<DEPOSITS>                                      64,585
<SHORT-TERM>                                        50
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                850
<LONG-TERM>                                        602
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           208
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  74,825
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  3,111
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,822
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   460
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,393
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,653
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,701
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,692
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,609
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,067
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     5.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     5.12
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.72
<LOANS-NON>                                          6
<LOANS-PAST>                                       149
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   382
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        4
<RECOVERIES>                                        13
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  391
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               391
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        


</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 23 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Sunrise Senior
Living, Inc., as listed below, of our reports dated March 14, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., Sunrise Senior Living, Inc.
managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sunrise Senior Living, Inc., included
in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. RegistrationStatementNumber
    
    Form
    
    Description333-05257
    
    Form S-8
    
    1995 Stock Option Plan, as amended, 1996
Directors Stock Option Plan, Stock Option
Agreement entered into, effective January
4, 1995, by and between Sunrise Assisted
Living, Inc. and David W. Faeder333-38430
    
    Form S-8
    
    1996 Non-Incentive Stock Option Plan, as
Amended333-26837
    
    Form S-8
    
    1997 Stock Option Plan333-57291
    
    Form S-8
    
    1996 Directors Stock Option Plan, as
Amended333-57293
    
    Form S-8
    
    1998 Stock Option Plan333-78313
    
    Form S-8
    
    1999 Stock Option Plan333-78543
    
    Form S-8
    
    Karrington Health, Inc. 1996
Incentive Stock Plan333-38432
    
    Form S-8
    
    2000 Stock Option Plan333-61918
    
    Form S-8
    
    2001 Stock Option Plan333-88570
    
    Form S-8
    
    2002 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan333-61914
    
    Form S-8
    
    Employee Stock Purchase Plan333-109228
    
    Form S-8
    
    2003 Stock Option and Restricted Stock Plan333-120738
    
    Form S-8
    
    Employee Stock Purchase Plan
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP McLean, VA
March 15, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 97 (Thursday, May 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 28240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12278]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, May 26, 2010, 9 a.m.-11 a.m.

PLACE: Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Pending Decisional Matters: (a) Baby Walkers Final Rule; and (b) 
Revocation of the Ban of Certain Baby Walkers.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at http://www.cpsc.gov/webcast.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: May 14, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-12278 Filed 5-18-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
3


                           TLC Laser Eye Centers Inc.
                            Form 10-K - Exhibit 23.1
                               Consent of Auditors

                  Consent of Independent Chartered Accountants

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (No.333-8162) and Form S-8 (No. 333-55480) of TLC Laser Eye Centers
Inc. of our report dated July 6, 2001 (except as to Note 20 which is as at
August 27, 2001), on the Consolidated Financial Statements of TLC Laser Eye
Centers Inc. as at May 31, 2001 and 2000 and for each of the years in the three
(3) year period ended May 31, 2001 prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States included in the 2001 Annual
Report (Form 10-K) of TLC Laser Eye Centers Inc.


Toronto, Canada                         /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
August 28, 2001                         Chartered Accountants
The Honorable William G. Cambridge, Jr., Chief Judge, United States District 1

Court for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 98-2149NE

_____________

Valomark Love, *

*

Appellant, *

* On Appeal from the United 

v. * States District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Marvin T. Runyon, Jr., Postmaster * Nebraska.

General, United States Post Office, *

* (PUBLISHED)

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: December 28, 1998

 Filed: January 11, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Valomark Love appeals from the District Court’s judgment for defendant

1

Postmaster General after a bench trial. Love had been discharged by the United States

Postal Service for failure to maintain a regular work schedule. In 1996, Love, who is

an African-American male, filed this action claiming that the Postal Service
The Honorable David L. Piester, United States Magistrate Judge for the District 2

of Nebraska.

The Honorable Kathleen Ann Jaudzemis, United States Magistrate Judge for

3

the District of Nebraska.

-2-

discriminated against him because of his race, sex, and disability. Love’s request for

appointment of counsel was denied, as was his October 30, 1997 motion to amend his 2

complaint. On March 17, 1998, the District Court conducted a bench trial, at which 3

Love appeared pro se. On the first day of trial, the Court indicated it had denied

Love’s second motion to amend his complaint. During the four-day trial, Love

presented eleven witnesses, including himself, and introduced thirty-five exhibits.

Although Love established a prima facie case of discrimination, the Court concluded

that the Postal Service showed a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating

Love’s employment, and that Love failed to show the reason was pretextual. For

reversal, Love argues that he established pretext, he should have been allowed to

amend his complaint to add a claim of disparate impact, and counsel should have been

appointed for him.

Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs, we find the record

does not support Love’s allegation that the Postal Service intentionally discriminated

against Love because of his race, sex, or disability, and thus we conclude the District

Court’s determination was not clearly erroneous. See Peanick v. Morris, 96 F.3d 316,

321 (8th Cir. 1996); Beith v. Nitrogen Prods., Inc., 7 F.3d 701, 703 (8th Cir. 1993) (per

curiam). We further conclude there was no abuse of discretion in denying Love’s

motion for appointment of counsel, see Swope v. Cameron, 73 F.3d 850, 851-52 (8th

Cir. 1996), and no abuse of discretion in denying Love leave to amend his complaint,

see Vitale v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 814 F.2d 1242, 1251 (8th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, we affirm.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### John W. Jones, plaintiff in error, vs. Asbury A. Adams, defendant in error.

When there has not been personal service on the defendant in a suit on an open account, the plaintiff must prove his claim to the satisfaction of the Court by competent testimony before he is entitled to a judgment, although no issuable defense has been filed on oath. (R.)

Judgment Service. Account. Before Judge Clark. ' Sumter Superior Court. October Adjourned Term, 1870.

For the facts of this case, see the decision of the Court.

John R. Worrill, for plaintiff in error.

C. T. Goode, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a motion to set aside a judgment in the Court below, which had been obtained on an open account, without any proof of the account before the Court, the defendant not having been *personally*served, and the sheriff’s return showing that the defendant had been served by leaving a copy at the defendant’s residence. The Constitution of 1868 declares, that the Court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil'cases founded on *contract,*where an issuable defense is not filed on oath, but the Court must have before it satisfactory evidence of *the contract.*The 3405th section of the Code declares, that in all cases of suits on open accounts in the several Courts of this State, where the writ or process has been served *personally,*as the law now directs, on the defendant, and there is no defense made by the party sued, either in person or by attorney, at the time the case is submitted for trial, the plaintiff shall be permitted to take a verdict, as if each and every item were proved by testimony. When there has not been *personal*service of the writ or process on the defendant in a suit on an open account, the plaintiff must prove his account to the satisfaction of the Court, *606by competent testimony, before he is entitled to a judgment, although no issuable defense has been filed on oath. An open account is not such a contract as the Constitution contemplates. To authorize the Court to render judgment without proof on an open account, there must have been *personal*service of the writ or process on the defendant.

Let the judgment of the Court below be affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41728 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE NARVAEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-597-ALL

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Narvaez appeals his sentence under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b) for illegal reentry into the United States after having been deported after conviction for an aggravated felony. Narvaez asserts for the first time on appeal that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court’s decision in Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), controls this issue. We must follow Almendarez-Torres “unlessNo. 04-41728 -2- and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Thus, this issue is foreclosed. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
------

~J Smithsonian Institution 

Office of General Counsel 

CERTIFICATE REGARDING TAX STATUS OF THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

The undersigned, John E. Huerta, the General Counsel of the Smithsonian Institution and as such 

authorized to execute this certificate in the name of the Smithsonian Institution, hereby certifies 

that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, the following facts are true, correct and 

complete: 

(1) The Smithsonian Institution has received a ruling or determination letter from the Internal 

Revenue Service stating that the Smithsonian Institution qualifies as an organization described in 

Section 501(c)(3), Section 170(b)(l)(A)(vi), and Section 509(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

(2) Notice of a change in the status of the Smithsonian Institution under the section or sections of 

the Internal Revenue Code identified above has not been made to the public ( such as by 

publication ofthe Internal Revenue Bulletin), and the Internal Revenue Service has not given 

notice to the Smithsonian Institution that it will be deleted from such status. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION 

Dated: 
Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service 

Baltimore District 31 Hopkins Plaza, Balti~ore, MD 21201 District Teiephone: (202) 376-0026 Director 

~ Smithsonian Institution 

Treasurer's Office SI-J1~ 

Washington, D.C. 20560 

Gentlemen! 

As you requested, this letter is to confirm the conclusion 

stated.in our letter dated September 18, 1978 that we have 

completed our examination of your Form 990 for the year 

ended June JO, 1976 and found that your exemption from 

Federal Income Tax pursuant to section 501(a) and 501(c)(J) 

of the Internal Revenue Code continues. 

-SJ_ncerely yours, 

G~rald G. Portney 

District Director 

.,
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13(a)  14(b) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT, SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

In connection with the Annual Report of Swedish Match AB (publ) (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: June 21, 2006 |  | /s/ Sven Hindrikes
|                    |  | By:                |  | Sven Hindrikes                       
|                    |  |                    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                    | 
|Date: June 21, 2006 |  | /s/ Lars Dahlgren 
|                    |  | By:                |  | Lars Dahlgren                        
|                    |  |                    |  | Chief Financial Officer              

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Swedish Match AB (publ) and will
be retained by Swedish Match AB (publ) and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification will not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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 of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 even if the document with which it is submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4737 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4737

 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
 to grant to States on the Gulf of Mexico jurisdiction over fisheries 
      out to 9 nautical miles from shore, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 22, 2014

 Mr. Palazzo introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 
 to grant to States on the Gulf of Mexico jurisdiction over fisheries 
      out to 9 nautical miles from shore, 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 ``State Fisheries Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. STATE JURISDICTION OVER FISHERIES IN THE GULF OF MEXICO.

    Section 306(b) (16 U.S.C. 1856(b)) is amended by adding at the end 
the following:
    ``(3) Notwithstanding section 3(11) and subsection (a) of this 
section, for purposes of managing fisheries in the Gulf of Mexico, the 
seaward boundary of a coastal State in the Gulf of Mexico is a line 9 
nautical miles seaward from the baseline from which the territorial sea 
of the United States is measured.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

Pursuant to Section 1350,Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as general counsel, vicepresident corporate development of MacroChem Corporation (the “Company”), doeshereby certify that to the undersigned’s knowledge:

 

1)       Company’s report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “  Form 10-Q  “) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)       the information contained in the Company’sForm 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|   | /s/  Lawrence  Reilly |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   |                            |
|   | Lawrence Reilly                 |
|   | (Principal Accounting  Officer) |

 

 

Dated:    November 19,2008

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to MacroChemCorporation and will be retained by MacroChem Corporation and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### CHARLES EDMUND FOUGERA, Respondent, *v.*FRANCIS J. MOISSEN, Assignee of CHARLES ZELLER, Impleaded with others, Appellants.

*Answer alleging title of mortgage in third person*— not *frivolous.*

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the assignee for the benefit of the creditors of the mortgagor set up in his answer, that the plaintiff had previously assigned the bond and mortgage to one Surrin, who thereupon became the owner thereof.

*Held,*that these facts constituted a defense, and that the answer should not be stricken out as frivolous.

Appeal from an order overruling the answer of one of the defendants herein as frivolous, and ordering judgment for the plaintiff thereon, with ten dollars costs.

*F. J. Moissen,*for the appellants.

No pleading can be called frivolous which sets up matter which, if true, constitutes a defense *238to the action. *(Richter*v. *McMurray,*15 Abb., 346; *Davis*v. *Potter,*4 How., 155; *Temple*v. *Murray,*6 id., 331; *Metropolitan Bank*v. *Lord,*4 Duer, 630; *Caswell*v. *Bushnell,*14 Barb., 393.) It is not the motive of putting in the answer which is in question on a motion to strike out as frivolous, but the frivolousness of the defense. If the defense is good, the motion should be denied. *(Meeker*v. *Mitchell,*5 Abb., 455.) The answer was not frivolous. *(Smith*v. *Mead,*14 Abb., 262.)

*Coudert Brothers,*for the respondent.

DykmaN, J.:

This is an action for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and a general assignee of the mortgagor for the benefit of creditors is made defendant. He interposed an answer, and set up that on or about the month of July, 1876, by an instrument in writing, duly executed under his hand and seal, the plaintiff sold, assigned and set over the bond and mortgage mentioned and described in the complaint in this action unto one John Surrin, who thereupon became the lawful owner and holder thereof. A motion was made to strike out this answer as frivolous, which was granted, and an appeal from that order brings the case here.

The fact set up constitutes a defense to this action, and if proven on the trial would prevent a judgment for the plaintiff. We think therefore the answer was not frivolous, and the order appealed from must be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

BarNAED, P. J., concurred.

Present — BarNard, P. J., Gilbert and DyemaN, JJ.

Order affirmed, with costs and disbursements.