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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,651,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  194,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (47,500)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,237,600
<PP&E>                                         860,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (261,200)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,970,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,124,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,593,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,970,300
<SALES>                                      1,492,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,492,100
<CGS>                                          762,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  762,400
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,109,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (55,400)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (3,323,900)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,325,500)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.65)
        

</TABLE>
#### BLUE MOON CHEESE PRODUCTS, Inc., Appellant, v. ALUMINUM COMPANY OF AMERICA.

No. 10944.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 18, 1937.

Clark R. Fletcher, Leavitt R. Barker, and Donald E. Nelson, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

Claude G. Krause and George D. Mc-Clintock, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from1 judgment and order of District Court of December 2, 1936, and February 4, 1937, respectively, dismissed without costs to either party in this court, pursuant to stipulation of parties.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                         962,000
<SECURITIES>                                18,816,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,178,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 5,040,000
<INVENTORY>                                  9,783,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,062,000
<PP&E>                                      12,804,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,273,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,616,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,390,000
<BONDS>                                      7,500,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       112,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,614,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,616,000
<SALES>                                     18,909,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,909,000
<CGS>                                       13,668,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,668,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,697,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,170,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (594,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,576,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02663-REB-MEH

DEMPSEY ALEXANDER KENNEDY and

CRYSTAL PHIFER,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF AMERICA, a Tennessee corporation, and

TAMMY MOSNESS, an individua,

Defendants.

MINUTE ORDER

Entered by Michael E. Hegarty, United States Magistrate Judge, on January 12, 2012.

Defendants’ Unopposed Motion to Vacate Settlement Conference [filed January 12, 2012;

docket #17] is granted. The Settlement Conference scheduled for January 17, 2012 is hereby

vacated. If the parties wish to reschedule, they are directed to first conference together, then call

my Chambers at (303) 844-4507 to obtain an available date. 

Case 1:11-cv-02663-REB-MEH Document 19 Filed 01/12/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
		32

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
		Annual Report of Primus Guaranty, Ltd., a Bermuda company (the
		Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as
		filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
		Report), I, Thomas W. Jasper, Chief Executive Officer of the
		Company, and I, Richard Claiden, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
		certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
		of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)
			 to my
				  knowledge, 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: March 14,
		2007



/s/
				  Thomas W. JasperThomas W.
				  Jasper
				Chief
				  Executive Officer/s/ Richard
				  ClaidenRichard
				  ClaidenChief
				  Financial Officer


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



---
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 8, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.212 Corporate and Foreign Bonds** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION 
  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 
  AND RULE 13a-14(b) OR RULE 15d-14(b) 
  OF THE U.S. SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Golden Queen Mining
Co. Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date
indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
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.

|Dated: November 13, 2009 | /s/
      Lutz Klingmann                                         
|------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                         | Lutz Klingmann                                                   
|                         | Principal Executive Officer and Principal
      Financial Officer

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS

LAFAYE ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC.,

MARK HARRIS, in his individual capacity and official capacity as Senior Manager, and

MARK POOLE, in his individual capacity and official capacity as P&D Manager,

Defendants.

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS ON APPEAL

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

Plaintiff has submitted a Notice of Appeal. Plaintiff previously was allowed to proceed

in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 in this court in this action. The court has

examined the file and has determined that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal

must be denied. Pursuant to Rule 24(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the

court finds that this appeal is not taken in good faith because plaintiff has not shown the

existence of a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument on the law and facts in support of the issues

raised on appeal. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied because this

appeal is not taken in good faith.

DATED at Denver, Colorado this 24th day of April, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

 s/Lewis T. Babcock 

LEWIS T. BABCOCK, Senior Judge

United States District Court

Case 1:11-cv-02333-LTB-CBS Document 65 Filed 04/24/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10(a)


                                FIRST AMENDMENT
                                      TO
                          NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION
                      ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN
                       (Effective as of January 1, 1999)

     THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to the Newmont Mining Corporation Annual Incentive
Compensation Plan (effective as of January 1, 1999) (the "Plan") is effective as
of January 1, 1999.

                                   RECITALS
                                   --------

     1.  Effective as of January 1, 1999, Newmont Mining Corporation
(the"Corporation") adopted the Plan.

     2.  Pursuant to Section 8.6 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the
Corporation reserved the right to amend the Plan at any time, upon the
recommendation of the Compensation Committee.

     3.  Upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee, the Board has
authorized the amendment of the Plan, effective as of January 1, 1999, as set
forth below.

                                   AMENDMENT
                                   ---------

     1.  Section 3.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by the addition thereto, at
the end, of the following new paragraph:

     "Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 6.1, for purposes
     of computing the Unit Performance Bonus for Participants assigned to the
     Consolidated Unit, 90% of the Unit Performance Percentage shall be based
     upon the performance results of the Company's operations other than Batu
     Hijau, resulting in the use of 63% in place of 70% in the above formula and
     10% of the Unit Performance Percentage shall be based upon the performance
     results for Batu Hijau.  In order to reflect the Batu Hijau 1999 results,
     based upon the economic benefit/detriment of actual versus targeted
     capital, costs and production factors set forth on the attached Exhibit A,
     7% of the Unit Performance Bonus for such Participants shall be based upon
     the factors set forth on Exhibit A."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed this 3rd day of
May, 2000, to be effective as of January 1, 1999.


                                         NEWMONT MINING CORPORATION
ATTEST:

/s/ Janet K. Buda                        By: /s/ T. J. Schmitt
-----------------                           ------------------
                                            Vice President
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Senior District Judge Richard P. Matsch

Date: March 27, 2013

Courtroom Deputy: Sabrina Grimm

FTR Technician: Kathy Terasaki

____________________________________________________________________________________

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02391-RPM

MARVIN J. THOMAS, John W. McKendree

Plaintiff,

v.

DENVER PUBLIC SCHOOLS, Holly Eileen Ortiz

Defendant.

____________________________________________________________________________________

COURTROOM MINUTES

____________________________________________________________________________________

Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment

10:20 a.m. Court in session.

Court’s preliminary remarks.

Court states its understanding of case. 

10:24 a.m. Argument by Ms. Ortiz.

Court’s comments and observations. 

10:41 a.m. Argument by Mr. McKendree.

10:53 a.m. Rebuttal argument by Ms. Ortiz.

ORDERED: Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment [16], is denied.

ORDERED: A Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for June 21, 2013 at 2:00 p.m.

Court states its practice regarding orders of reference to Magistrate Judge for settlement (joint motion).

11:05 a.m. Court in recess. 

Hearing concluded. Total time: 45 mins.

Case 1:11-cv-02391-RPM-KMT Document 27 Filed 03/27/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DAVID M. WILLIAMS, § § No. 244, 2018 Defendant Below, § Appellant, § Court Below: Superior Court § of the State of Delaware v. § § Cr. ID Nos. 9803018202A (N) STATE OF DELAWARE, § 9803018202B (N) § Plaintiff Below, § Appellee. § Submitted: May 22, 2018 Decided: June 4, 2018 ORDER On May 7, 2018, the Clerk issued a no tice, by certified mail, directing the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismisse d for the appellant’s failure to pay the filing fee or to file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis requesting a waiver of the fee. The appellant r eceived the notice to show cause on May 10, 2018 and has not responded to the notice w ithin the required ten-day period. Dismissal of the appeal is deemed to be unopposed. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, unde r Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) and 29(b), that the appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. Justice
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification**

 

I, Peter Hovenier, certify that:

 

1.                                     I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Boingo Wireless, Inc.; and

 

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.

 
| Date:   May 8, 2019 | /s/ PETER HOVENIER                                                          |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                     | Peter Hovenier                                                              |
|                     | *Chief   Financial Officer*

*(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)* |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, J. Russell Porter,
Chief Executive Officer of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the Company), hereby certify that the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for 12 months ended December 31, 2008 (the Report), filed by the Company with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.

Date: March 16, 2009



/s/ J. RUSSELL PORTERJ. Russell Porter Chief Executive
Officer
Case 1:11-cv-02576-WYD-MEH Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02576-WYD-MEH Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02576-WYD-MEH Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 4
Case 1:11-cv-02576-WYD-MEH Document 6 Filed 10/12/11 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00406-CMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

1. MANUEL SANTISTEVAN,

2. DANIEL SHAW,

3. DUSTIN PFEIFFER,

Defendants.

ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING REGARDING SENTENCING

This matter is before the Court sua sponte. In preparation for the December

6 and 7, 2012 sentencing hearings in this case, the Court questions whether the

USSG § 2A3.1(b)(3) enhancement applies to the Defendants, who are prisoners,

not correctional officers. 

USSG §2A3.1(b)(3)(B) imposes a two-level enhancement under two scenarios:

If the victim was

A) in the custody, care or supervisory control of the Defendant; or

B) a person held in the custody of a correctional facility.

Because the victim was in the custody of a correctional facility, the broad and

general language of subparagraph (B) appears to encompass Defendants. However,

when subparagraph (B) is read in full context, taking into consideration the clause in

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 348 Filed 12/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

subparagraph (A), it appears to the Court that the two-level enhancement provided for

in this provision was intended to be applicable only if the perpetrator of the abuse was

a person in control of the victim, i.e., if it had been a correctional officer that committed

the assault. The Court researched this issue and could find no case that applied this

enhancement in the circumstance where the perpetrators of the assault were other

prisoners. Therefore, the Court

ORDERS that the parties shall submit further briefing on the issue of whether

the 2A3.1(b)(3))(B) enhancement applies in the context of this case, which involved

prisoner-on-prisoner abuse. Such briefing is to be filed no later than Noon on

Wednesday, December 5, 2012. 

DATED: December 3, 2012

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge

Case 1:11-cr-00406-CMA Document 348 Filed 12/03/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 10.9.1.1

                                     ANNEX A

                                Stuart C. Johnson

                                Employment Terms

1.   3,000,000 shares of Common Stock.

2.   0 shares of Preferred Stock

3.   a check.

4.   $300,000.

5.   Commonwealth of Virginia

6.   1,500,000 shares of Common Stock.

7.   Chief Executive Officer

8.   the Company's Chairman of the Board

9.   The Executive is on the PowerCerv Corporation, the Virginia Tech Foundation
     Board, the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center and the Board of
     Advisors to the Northern Virginia Technology Council.

10.  $180,000

11.  120%

12.  Performance Cause is applicable to the Executive. "Performance Cause" shall
mean failure to achieve a minimum acceptable financial performance for the
Company as determined by the Board for any period of 12 consecutive months for
which financial statements are available; provided, however, that the Board
shall determine in good faith if any adjustments thereto are necessary or
appropriate to account for extraordinary or nonrecurring events (including but
not limited to Acts of God, substantive information technology consulting
industry events (e.g., materially adverse tax or regulatory changes), strikes,
wars, terrorism, economic downturns) or other circumstances that should be
included or disregarded in order to fairly determine whether the Company has
failed to achieve such financial performance.

                                      -1-
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 7, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.117 Life Insurance Companies** |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Skip to Content*Release Date: December 7, 2006*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**L.124 Government-Sponsored Enterprises GSEs1** |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
**Exhibit
        32.1**
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**
  In
        connection with the Annual Report of Conscious Intention, Inc. (the"Company"),
        on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report"), I, Andrew Hamilton, President
        and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
        Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
  1. The
        Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
        the
        Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2. To
        my
        knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
        Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.
   */s/
                  Andrew
                  Hamiltonr*
                
                *Andrew
                  Hamilton*
                *Chief
                  Executive Officer*
                *Duly
                  Authorized Officer and Principal*
                *Financial
                  and Accounting Officer*
                
                
                *Date:
                  April 17, 2006*
#### SMITH v. J. B. GREEN PLUMBING & EQUIPMENT CO.

Supreme Court of Florida.

January Term 1954.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<PAGE>1

                              Subsidiaries



The Company has one subsidiary, First Citizens National Bank,
Dyersburg, Tennessee.  The Company is the sole shareholder of the
Bank.  First Citizens National Bank is a National Bank organized
under the authority of the Comptroller of the Currency.

On January 28, 1985, First Citizens Financial Plus, Inc. was
chartered in the State of Tennessee as a wholly-owned subsidiary of
First Citizens National Bank for the purpose of providing
investment advisory service to the community.  The Corporation's
registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission as an
investment advisor was effective February 21, 1985.

On December 19, 1988 First Citizens Financial Plus, Inc. received
notification from the National Association of Securities Dealers
that the Company's registration as a broker/dealer was effective. 
As a result, in addition to being an investment advisor, the
Company is now a full service introducing broker/dealer.