alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Accountants' Acknowledgment

Linens n Things, Inc.
Clifton, New Jersey

Board of Directors:

Re:    Registration Statements Numbers
 333-55803, 333-71903, 333-62982, and 333-62984 on Form S-8

With respect to the subject
registration statements, we acknowledge our awareness of the use therein of our
report dated July 18, 2001 related to our review of interim financial
information.

Pursuant to Rule 436(c)
under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not considered a part of a
registration statement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report
prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11
of the Act.

KPMG LLP
New York, New York
August 14, 2001
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1721 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1721

  To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to enable 
farmers and ranchers to obtain farm ownership loans for the purpose of 
                           refinancing loans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 3, 2001

 Ms. Lofgren introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                        Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to enable 
farmers and ranchers to obtain farm ownership loans for the purpose of 
                           refinancing loans.

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

SECTION 1. USE OF FARM OWNERSHIP LOANS TO REFINANCE LOANS.

    Section 303(a)(1) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development 
Act (7 U.S.C. 1923(a)(1)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (C);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (D) 
        and inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
                    ``(E) refinancing indebtedness.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

____________________________________

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Case No.: 06-CV-00354-PB

vs. )

) Judge Paul J. Barbadoro

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

 )

UNITED STATES’ MOTION IN LIMINE

TO EXCLUDE THE PROPOSED TESTIMONY OF

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY’S EXPERT WITNESS NEIL SHIFRIN

Plaintiff United States hereby moves this Court to exclude the proposed testimony of

General Electric Company’s expert witness Neil Shifrin pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence

702. The Rule requires that expert testimony should be reliable, relevant to the facts of a case,

and helpful to the trier of fact. The proposed expert, Neil Shifrin, is an engineer who offers three

separate opinions in support of defendant General Electric Company’s purported “useful

product” defense. For the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum of law, Shifrin is

not qualified to offer these opinions: the opinions are not based upon reliable methodology; they

are not relevant; and they would not assist the Court to understand the evidence or to determine

any fact in issue.

A proposed Order excluding the expert testimony of Neil Shifrin is attached for this

Court’s convenience.

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 59 Filed 08/03/08 Page 1 of 3
2

Respectfully submitted,

 

RONALD J. TENPAS

Assistant Attorney General

Environment and Natural Resources Division

United States Department of Justice

Washington, D.C. 20530

/s/ Catherine Adams Fiske 

Dated: 08/03/2008 Catherine Adams Fiske, Trial Attorney

Environmental Enforcement Section

United States Department of Justice

One Gateway Center, Suite 616

Newton, MA 02458

(617) 450-0444 

Laura J. Rowley, Trial Attorney

` Peter M. Flynn, Senior Attorney

Environmental Enforcement Section

United States Department of Justice

P.O. Box 7611

Washington, D.C. 20044-7611

THOMAS P. COLANTUONO 

United States Attorney 

District of New Hampshire

Gretchen Leah Witt

Chief, Civil Division

Office of the United States Attorney

53 Pleasant Street, Fourth Floor

Concord, NH 03301-3904

OF COUNSEL:

RuthAnn Sherman

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1

One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (SES)

Boston, MA 02114

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 59 Filed 08/03/08 Page 2 of 3
3

Certificate of Service

I, Catherine Adams Fiske, certify that the foregoing Motion, Memorandum and Proposed

Order were filed and served electronically through ECF on Peter Biagetti and William “Mo”

Cowan, counsel to the General Electric Company, on August 3, 2008.

/s/ C. A. Fiske 

Catherine A. Fiske

Case 1:06-cv-00354-PB Document 59 Filed 08/03/08 Page 3 of 3
#### Maria Portillo, Respondent, v 137 East 110th Street, LLC, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

[805 NYS2d 831]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, Jr., J.), entered April 6, 2005, denying the motion of defendant 137 East 110th Street, LLC, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Triable issues of fact exist as to whether appellant retained control over the cellar doors on its premises and, if so, whether it had constructive notice of the tripping hazard allegedly presented by those doors. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1993...... 24 2 4 7 11 .121 .010 .018 .035 .054

1994...... 10 1 1 3 6 .048 .003 .003 .013 .026

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

2003...... 32 4 6 8 14 .082 .010 .015 .021 .034

2004...... 18 1 5 2 10 .044 .003 .012 .005 .021

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Floyd Raymond LOOKER, a/k/a Ray, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 02-7661, 02-7662, 02-7663, 02-7664.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 21, 2003.

Floyd Raymond Looker, Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy, Office of the United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Floyd Raymond Looker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken to this court from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability mil not issue for claims addressed by the district court on the merits absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cock*rell, - U.S. -, -, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039-40, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). As to claims dismissed by a district court solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” *Rose v. Lee,*252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), *cert. denied,*534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Looker has not satisfied either standard. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability in each appeal and dismiss the appeals. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
14

A.9. Characteristics of Bank Loans to Farmers -- Large Farm Lenders, by Size of Loan, February 2-6Percent except as noted

$1,000 to $10,000 to $25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 t

Loan characteristic All sizes $9,999 $24,999 $49,999 $99,999 $249,999 Volume of loans (thousands of dollars) 919,804 26,760 47,406 58,975 83,952 154,92Number of loans 15,068 7,224 3,077 1,739 1,286 1,02Weighted average maturity (months)1 18.62 7.79 12.50 14.16 16.01 22.0

Weighted average repricing interval (months)2 3.00 1.46 2.44 3.97 4.99 4.4

Weighted average risk rating3 3.26 3.32 3.30 3.29 3.06 3.4

Weighted average interest rate4 4.69 5.90 5.52 5.26 5.24 4.8

 Standard error5 .13 .25 .14 .21 .19 .1 Interquartile range6 75th percentile 5.51 7.07 6.50 6.25 6.18 5.7 25th percentile 3.75 4.59 4.58 4.08 4.07 4.0 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 4.43 6.07 5.57 5.68 5.49 4.9 Other livestock 4.69 5.77 5.10 4.63 4.99 4.4 Other current operating expenses7 4.89 6.00 5.65 5.19 5.40 4.9

 Farm machinery and equipment 4.46 5.99 5.52 6.25 5.63 4.6 Farm real estate 5.65 6.01 5.82 6.35 6.11 5.8 Other8 4.33 5.06 4.92 4.93 4.42 4.3

Share of total loan volume Features of loan Floating rates 87.68 86.42 86.93 82.30 79.00 83.0 Under commitment 84.99 92.63 86.44 81.52 85.93 82.9 Callable 18.81 26.06 21.20 23.07 23.67 24.3 Purpose of loan Feeder livestock 6.72 5.49 5.59 7.09 9.20 5.1 Other livestock 5.50 3.26 4.97 4.80 11.94 5.9 Other current operating expenses7 46.31 73.92 65.80 60.38 54.89 56.5

 Farm machinery and equipment 7.11 5.14 10.74 7.68 4.91 3.9 Farm real estate 4.69 1.81 1.57 2.26 3.41 6.6 Other8 29.67 10.39 11.34 17.80 15.65 21.7

 Type of collateral Farm real estate 9.45 3.40 5.63 5.24 6.36 11.2 Other 81.95 89.56 88.07 83.47 90.02 80.8 Note. Most large farm lenders that reported loans to farmers had more than $25 million in farm loans. For explanation of footnotes, see table A.8.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**HARVEY L. MATTHEWS, JR.,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 916 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 23rd day of March, 2016, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**
#### Prosper BALLEX v. Marvin GREEN.

No. 3(750.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

June 10, 1935.

Heidelberg & Roberts, of Hattiesburg, for appellant.

F. M. Morris, of Hattiesburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1740

To repeal the wool and mohair subsidy provided in the Agriculture, Rural

Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 2001

Mr. WEINER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Agriculture

A BILL

To repeal the wool and mohair subsidy provided in the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF WOOL AND MOHAIR SUBSIDY.

4 (a) REPEAL.—Section 814 of the Agriculture, Rural

5 Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Re6 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (as enacted by

7 Public Law 106–387; 114 Stat. 1549A–55), is repealed.

8 (b) EFFECT OF REPEAL.—The repeal of such section

9 814 by subsection (a) shall not alter the validity of any
2

•HR 1740

1 payments made on or before the date of the enactment

2 of this Act to producers of wool or producers of mohair

3 for the 2000 marketing year under such section.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Rosemary A. Gilroy

v. Civil No. 07-cv-300-PB

James Kasper

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge 

Date: September 28, 2007

cc: Rosemary A. Gilroy, pro se

Case 1:07-cv-00300-JL Document 3 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2





Section 1350 Certification








I,
James J. Jacobs, certify that:





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Yuma Energy,
Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended September
30, 2016, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James J. Jacobs,
Chief Financial 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, as amended; 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/ James J. Jacobs


James
J. Jacobs


Chief
Financial Officer


November 14,
2016













The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the
Report or as a separate disclosure document.





A
signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 has been provided to, and will be retained by, the
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT



I, Kevin T. Michaels, Senior Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Powerwave Technologies, Inc. (the Company),
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended July 3, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 780(d)); and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  |                                   
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------------------------
|                      |  |  | 
|Date: August 12, 2005 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Kevin T. Michaels                 
|                      |  |  |  |    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Senior Vice President, Finance and
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Chief Financial Officer           
|                      |  |  |  |    
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                       |  | Powerwave Technologies, Inc.
Exhibit
      10.5




**AMENDMENT
        TO FIELD SERVICES AGREEMENT**
  This
        Amendment to Field Services Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into
        effective as of the 15th day of August, 2006 (the “Effective Date”), by and
        between TXU Electric Delivery Company, a Texas Corporation (“TXU ED”), and
        InfrastruX Energy Services Group LP, a Delaware limited partnership (“IES”). TXU
        ED and IES are also referred to herein individually as a “Party” and
        collectively as the “Parties.”
  **RECITALS**
  WHEREAS,
        the Parties entered into that certain Field Services Agreement, dated June
        24,
        2006 (as amended to date, the “Agreement”); and
  WHEREAS,
        the Parties desire to amend a certain defined term set forth in the
        Agreement.
  NOW,
        THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and subject to the terms
        and
        conditions herein set forth, the Parties agree as follows.
  **AGREEMENT**
  1.  Amendment .  The
        term “Oncor” shall be amended to read “TXUED” wherever it occurs in the
        Agreement. The parties shall amend and restate the Agreement to reflect only
        the
        provisions of this Amendment.
  2.  Full
        Force and Effect .
        Except as specifically amended and modified hereby, the Agreement shall remain
        in full force and effect.
  3.  Counterparts .
        This Amendment may be executed in several counterparts, each of which is
        an
        original and all of which constitute one and the same instrument.
  
  
  IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment effective as of
        the
        Effective Date. This Amendment shall not become effective as to either Party
        unless and until executed by both Parties.
  
  **TXU
                  ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY**By:
              /s/
                  James A. GreerName:
              James
                  A. GreerTitle:
              Vice
                  President, Asset Management & Engineering
 
  
  **INFRASTRUX
                  ENERGY SERVICES**
                **GROUP
                  LP**By:
              **InfrastruX
                  Energy GP, LLC, its general partner**By:
              **InfrastruX
                  Group, Inc., its member**By:
              /s/
                  Michael T. LennonName:
              Michael
                T. Lennon
 
 
 By:
              **TXU
                  Asset Services Group Management LLC, its general
                  partner**By:
              /s/
                  James A. GreerName:
              James
                  A. GreerTitle:
              Senior
                  Vice President
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health 

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting. 

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. 

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel; AA1 and AA4 Member Conflict Applications Review.                     

*Date:*                         November 13, 2008.                     

*Time:*                         2 p.m. to 5 p.m.                     

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                     

*Place:*                         NIAAA, 5935, Fisher Lane, 3002, Rockville, MD, (Telephone Conference Call).                     

*Contact Person:*                         Katrina L. Foster, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, National Inst on Alcohol Abuse & Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm. 3042, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-4032,                         *katrina@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: September 17, 2008. 

Jennifer Spaeth, 

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E8-22296 Filed 9-24-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-107-01-SM

Travis Blodgett

O R D E R

Defendant Blodgett’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 16). Trial has been rescheduled for the February 

2007 trial period. Defendant Blodgett shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than January 2, 2007. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: January 30, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.

Jury Selection: February 6, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00107-PB Document 17 Filed 12/21/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

_____________________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

December 21, 2006

cc: Richard Foley, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00107-PB Document 17 Filed 12/21/06 Page 2 of 2