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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          29,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  233,389
<ALLOWANCES>                                    17,889
<INVENTORY>                                    207,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               527,608
<PP&E>                                       6,134,186
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,632,832
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,300,103
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          375,525
<BONDS>                                      2,338,059
<COMMON>                                        43,507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,045,192
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,300,103
<SALES>                                      1,895,179
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,956,295
<CGS>                                        1,077,154
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,118,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               252,012
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             120,988
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                186,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                    66,926
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            119,251
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (2,575)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   116,676
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.48
        


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION**I, Mick J. Miller, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Red Trail Energy, LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) forthe registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;          b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          c) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of governors (or persons performing the equivalent function):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 11, 2008                                                   /s/ Mick J. Miller     Mick J. Miller     Chief Executive Officer
Independent Auditors' Report



     The Board of Directors
     Payless Cashways, Inc.:


     We have  reviewed  the  accompanying  condensed  balance  sheets of Payless
     Cashways,  Inc.  as of  February  27,  1999 and  February  28, 1998 and the
     related  condensed   statements  of  operations  and  cash  flows  for  the
     thirteen-week  periods then ended. These condensed financial statements are
     the responsibility of the Company's management.

     We conducted our reviews in accordance  with  standards  established by the
     American  Institute of Certified  Public  Accountants.  A review of interim
     financial   information   consists   principally  of  applying   analytical
     procedures to financial  data and making  inquiries of persons  responsible
     for financial and accounting  matters.  It is  substantially  less in scope
     than an audit  conducted in accordance  with  generally  accepted  auditing
     standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding
     the financial statements taken as a whole.  Accordingly,  we do not express
     such an opinion.

     Based on our reviews,  we are not aware of any material  modifications that
     should be made to the accompanying  condensed financial statements for them
     to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

     We have previously  audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
     standards,  the balance sheet of Payless Cashways,  Inc. as of November 28,
     1998 and the related  statements of operations,  shareholders'  equity, and
     cash flows for the fiscal year then ended (not  presented  herein);  and in
     our report dated January 15, 1999, we expressed an  unqualified  opinion on
     those financial  statements.  In our opinion,  the information set forth in
     the accompanying  condensed balance sheet as of November 28, 1998 is fairly
     presented,  in all material respects, in relation to the balance sheet from
     which it has been derived.

                                  /s/KPMG LLP

     Kansas City, Missouri
     March 12, 1999
Electronically FiledIntermediate Court of AppealsCAAP-11-000106308-JUN-201209:31 AM
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEPT-30-2000
<CASH>                                           1,752
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      154
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,815
<PP&E>                                           1,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                     456
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,584
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               21
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           848
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,267
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,584
<SALES>                                            258
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   351
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (295)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (295)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (295)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.28)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32.2









CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 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 CHINATEL GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Carlos Trujillo, Chief Accounting Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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:  May 15, 2009
                /s/
      Carlos TrujilloCarlos
      Trujillo, Chief Accounting Officer & Chief Financial
      Officer
177 La. 24

#### CAIN v. JONES et al.

No. 30213.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March *27,*1933.

S. I. Poster, of Leesville, for appellant.

Thompson & Perguson, of Leesville, for ap-pellee.

ROGERS, Justice.

Henry Day Cain and Callie Pranks were married on October 16, 1896, but lived together only a few months. After their separation they were supposed to be divorced, and on January 25, 1900, Callie Pranks married W. M. Cain, by whom she had a number of children. On April 26, 1900, Henry Day Cain married Emma Walker, now deceased, of which marriage several children were born.

J. T. Jones secured from Callie Pranks Cain on March 23, 1926, a power of attorney, contract, and deed, under which, on July *7,*1926, Jones filed a suit on behalf of Callie Pranks Cain against Henry Day Cain, alleging they were not divorced, asking fo-r a separation from bed and board, and claiming an undivid-. ed one-half interest in all property owned by the defendant. Mrs. Callie Pranks Cain was' at the time, and for many years prior thereto had been, a resident of Jasper county, state of Tesas.

Before the case came to trial, Callie Pranks Cain died, namely, on December 31,1926, and on March 19, 1927, an attempt was made to substitute as parties plaintiff her father, brothers, and sisters as her heirs. The case, however, appears to have been dismissed upon motion of Henry Day Cain.

Some months after the former suit was dismissed, Henry Day Cain filed this suit against J. T. Jones to cancel the power of attorney, contract, and deed held by him, and against the heirs of Mrs. Callie Pranks Cain to be declared the owner of certain described real estate situated in the parish of Vernon. The ■trial of the case resulted in a judgment in favor of Henry Day Cain, decreeing him to be the owner of the property described in his petition, and ordering the instrument held by J. T. Jones canceled and erased from the public records. Prom this judgment, J. T. Jones took a devolutive appeal.

 The burden rests upon the appellant to show to the satisfaction of this court that the judgment of which he complains is erroneous. Hanton v. New Orleans & C. R. Light & Power Co., 124 La. 562, 50 So. 544. Appellant has not only not done this, but he has apparently abandoned the case, since he has filed no brief and made no appearance whatever in this court. We find no warrant therefore for disturbing -the judgment of the court below. Salassi v. Dougherty, 138 La. 1089, 71 So. 194.

Por the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6535 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6535

 To waive the cost-sharing requirements for certain STEM programs, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2022

  Mr. Bowman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To waive the cost-sharing requirements for certain STEM programs, 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 ``Empowering STEM Discovery Act''.

SEC. 2. MANDATORY COST-SHARING.

    (a) Waiver.--The cost-sharing requirements under section 7036(c) of 
the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence 
in Technology, Education, and Science Act (42 U.S.C. 1862o-14(c)) for 
the Major Research Instrumentation Program and under section 10A(i) of 
the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 
1862n-1a(i)) for teaching fellowships administered within the Robert 
Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program are waived for a period of 5 years 
following the date of enactment of this Act.
    (b) Assessment.--Not later than 5 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Director shall submit to Congress an assessment, that 
includes feedback from the research community, of the impacts of the 
waivers provided under subsection (a), including--
            (1) programmatic and scientific goals;
            (2) institutional commitment and stewardship of Federal 
        resources;
            (3) institutional strategic planning and administrative 
        burden;
            (4) equity among grantee institutions; and
            (5) recommendations for or against extending or making 
        permanent such waivers.
                                 <all>
```
187 La. 263

#### FRADELLA et al. v. PUMILIA et al.

No. 33673.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 26, 1937.

Dart & Dart, Leo L. Dubourg, and Henry G. Huckabee, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Fred. A. Middleton, of New Orleans, for appellees.

HIGGINS, Justice.

This appeal was taken by one of the defendants for the purpose of having corrected the alleged error of including him as one of the defendants condemned in the j udgment.

*351The record shows that the plaintiffs were declared to be part owners of the property in litigation where Gaspar Pu-milia and his wife, Mrs. Josephine De-Matteo Pumilia, and Marco Rosamano were the defendants. 177 La. 47, 147 So. 496.

The case was remanded to the district court for the "purpose of having determined how much rents and revenues were due the plaintiffs by the defendants Gas-par Pumilia and his wife. The appellant, Marco Rosamano, was the mortgage creditor and was not alleged by the plaintiffs to have received any of the rents and revenues from the property and therefore was not made a defendant in the petition asking for an accounting. When the case was heard on its merits with reference to the accounting, the eight plaintiffs obtained judgment in their favor for the sum of $266.02 each, against the defendants, in solido. Marco Rosamano appealed, but the other defendants did not.

The judgment of the lower court with reference to the accounting, in so far as it includes Mr. Rosamano as a defendant, is ultera petitionem. This inadvertence in the judgment will be corrected by deleting the name of Marco Rosamano as a defendant condemned in the accounting proceedings.

For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from is amended by eliminating the name of Marco Rosamano as a defendant condemned to pay the plaintiffs the amount of the rents and revenues found to be due, but, in all other respects, the judgment is affirmed; appellees to pay the costs of court.
BLD-231 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 17-1536

___________

IN RE: RONNIE VAUGHN,

 Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. Civ. No. 1-16-cv-01072)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

May 11, 2017

Before: AMBRO, GREENAWAY, JR. and SCIRICA, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: July 11, 2017)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

In June of 2016, Ronnie Vaughn filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in the District 

Court, claiming that his due process rights had been violated at a parole hearing when the 

hearing examiner “proceeded forward with the hearing without all of the information that 

was submitted to the Parole Commission . . . to score [him] correctly.” He filed an 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

amended petition in December of 2016, claiming that “[t]he United States Parole 

Commission conducted the hearing in an unconstitutional manner by not applying the 

1987 Regulations and 1991 Guidelines to [his] initial hearing.” In April of 2017, the 

District Court denied Vaughn’s request for counsel—observing that “it is not clear that 

the petition has arguable merit”—but has yet to resolve his § 2241 petition.

Meanwhile, in March of 2017, Vaughn filed this mandamus petition, claiming that 

“[h]ad the parole board properly scored [him] he would have received parole on July 27, 

2015.” He argues that the District Court’s delay in resolving his petition is “tantamount 

to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” and apparently seeks an order from this Court 

directing the District Court to resolve it.

While we “may issue a writ of mandamus on the ground that undue delay is 

tantamount to a failure to exercise jurisdiction,” Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d 

Cir. 1996), only five months have passed since Vaughn filed his amended § 2241 

petition. We also note that the District Court, just weeks ago, denied his request for 

counsel. Though the five-month delay is concerning, it does not warrant mandamus 

relief. See id. We are confident that the District Court will rule on his petition without 

undue delay. His mandamus petition will be denied.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7265
RONALD G. BAILEY-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, versus B. G. COMPTON; FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-03-817-7-SGW) Submitted: January 26, 2005 Decided: February 24, 2005 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald G. Bailey-El, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Ronald G. Bailey-El, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Bailey-El v. Compton , No. CA-03-817-7-SGW (W.D. Va. filed June 8, 2004 & entered June 9, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 23.2–Consent of
MHA Petroleum Consultants, Inc.








April 21,
      2008




Gulf Western Petroleum
Corporation


Boardof Directors





RE:           Gulf Western Petroleum Corporation, SEC
Form 10-KSB/A at August 31, 2007





Dear Sirs:





We refer to our report entitled
“Securities and Exchange
Commission Evaluation, Oil & Natural Gas Reserves, Oakcrest Prospect,
Wharton County, Texas, Effective September 1, 2007”(the “Report”); incorporated by reference in the
referenced Form 10-KSB/A.





We hereby consent to the use of our name
and references to excerpts from the Report in the referenced Form
10-KSB/A.





We have read the Form 10-KSB/A
andhave no reason to
believe that there are any misrepresentations in the information contained
therein that are derived from the Report or that are within our knowledge as a
result of the preparation of our Report.








Sincerely,/s/ Leslie S. O’ConnorLeslie S. O’Connor, B.Sc.,
      L.P.G.Vice
    President
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6515 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the Health 

Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2022 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROY, and Mr. MASSIE) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 

in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, Education and Labor, 

Natural Resources, the Judiciary, House Administration, Rules, and Appropriations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act 

of 2010. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Responsible Path to 

5 Full Obamacare Repeal Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6515 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AF2 FORDABLE CARE ACT AND THE HEALTH 

3 CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILIATION ACT 

4 OF 2010. 

5 (a) PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE

6 ACT.—Effective October 1, 2022, the Patient Protection 

7 and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148) is re8 pealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by 

9 such Act are restored or revived as if such Act had not 

10 been enacted. 

11 (b) HEALTH CARE AND EDUCATION RECONCILI12 ATION ACT OF 2010.—Effective October 1, 2022, the 

13 Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 

14 (Public Law 111–152) is repealed, and the provisions of 

15 law amended or repealed by such Act are restored or re16 vived as if such Act had not been enacted. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS