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


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from DAVIDSON
DIVERSIFIED  Real Estate III, L.P. 2000 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000773679
<NAME>                              DAVIDSON DIVERSIFIED REAL ESTATE III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                   667
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            181
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                35,481
<DEPRECIATION>                                       (18,402)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        18,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               23,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                            (6,229)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          18,390
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       1,508
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       1,691
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       536
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (183)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (176.96)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
#### HURON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. HOWARD M. LAWN AND DAVID SCHWARTZ.

February 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### G. H. *&*S. A. R’y Co. v. Schrader.

(No. 1979, Op. Book No. 2, p. 419.)

Appeal from Guadalupe County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1147. *Damages in suit against railroad for killing stock; market value; proof of.*Appellee sued the railroad company for the value of six calves killed by its engine and cars. The only proof of value was the testimony of' the plaintiff Schrader, as follows: “My calves were in fine condition; took nearly all the milk from the cows;, were half-breed, the produce of a Durham bull, and showed the Durham stock, and were worth to me $25 per head. I had not sold any calves. The calves were' worth as much in October or September as they would be worth in the following spring. I had paid $25 for a half-breed yearling.” *Held,*this testimony is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. (The verdict was for plaintiff for $125.) Article 4245 of the Revised Statutes declares that the railroad company shall be liable to the-owner for the value of all stock killed or injured by the locomotives and cars of the company. The value is-the fixed measure of damages, and this value, as a general rule, is to be ascertained by testimony of the price at which such things are bought and sold. If there is a. *649market for calves, the market price is the measure of value. If there is no market at the place, evidence may be admitted of the price at the nearest market, but what the value of the calves to the plaintiff was, certainly was not a proper rule to determine it by. “Men sometimes put fantastical prices upon their property.” Nor was the price Schrader paid for a half-breed yearling any fair criterion of the market value of calves. A single transaction doss not make a market. It must appear that similar things have been bought and sold in the way of trade often enough to show a market value. [1 Sedgw. Dam. 588.] Where there is no market for an article, other means may be resorted to for the purpose of fixing the value. The intrinsic qualities of the thing, its uses, and any facts which would naturally affect the mind of parties buying or selling, in determining the price to be asked or given, are relevant to the question of value. [Abbott’s Tr. Ev. 307; R. R. Co. v. Davis, *ante,*p. 58.] But how Schrader might appreciate his calves, or what he might consider them worth to him, or what another, not knowing the market price, might estimate to be their worth, was no criterion of their value.

May 18, 1881.

§ 1148. *Charge of the court; damages; when incorrect, is asked.*Where a question of damages is involved, the court should instruct the jury as to the proper measure or rule by which to estimate such damages, and it is error to merely direct the jury to find such amount of damages as they may think the party entitled to under the proof. When an incorrect charge is asked, the court is not bound to correct or modify it, but may properly refuse it, although portions of it may be correct.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In  connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Trans  Energy,  Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, William
F. Woodburn , Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


/s/   WILLIAM F. WOODBURN
--------------------------------
William F. Woodburn
Principal Accounting Officer
August 18, 2003

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of
         this  written  statement  has been  provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing  certifications are
         accompanying  the Company's Form 10-QSB solely  pursuant to section 906
         of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350,  chapter  63 of title 18,  United  States  Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.
1

Filed 9/9/13 P. v. C olbert CA

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JACK B. COLBERT,

Defendant and Appellant. C072435

(Super. Ct. No. 10F05189)

Appointed counsel for defendant Jack B. Colbert asked this court to review the

record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende ).) Finding no arguable error that would result in a

disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment.

I

Because the matter was resolved by plea and defendant waived referral to the

probation department, the facts are taken from the p rosecutor’s statement of the factual2

basis for the plea. On August 14, 2010, defendant took, by force and fear, personal

property from the possession and immediate presence of victim Kenneth Straton. In so

doing, defendant personally used a firearm.

T he jury deadlocked and the trial court declared a mistrial. Defendant

subsequently pleaded no contest to second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5,

subd. (c)) 1 and admitted that he personally used a firearm in the commission of the

offense (§ 12022. 5, subd. (a)). In exchange, the trial court dismissed, with a Harvey

waiver, 2 a count charging second degree robbery involving a different victim.

The trial court sentenced defendant to prison for the stipulated middle term of

three years plus the low term of three years for the firearm enhancement, awarded

defendant 62 days of custody credit and nine days of conduct credit, and ordered

defendant to pay a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $1,200 parole revocation fine

(§ 1202.45), a $40 court operat ions fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities

assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).

Defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause.

II

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and

asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable

issues on appeal. ( Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of

the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief.

More than 30 days elapsed and we received no communication from defendant.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code

.

2 People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.3

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error

that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

MAURO , J.

We concur:

BLEASE , Acting P. J.

ROBIE , J.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ALLEN BOYD.

February 6, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Geoffrey B. Genovese, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of EnvoyCommunications Group Inc., certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Envoy Communications Group Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor 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 report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The company’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 l5d-l5(e))for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 

 
 (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.      ENVOY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 38 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 38

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of 
    individuals from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual 
                    orientation or gender identity.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 22 (legislative day, January 3), 2013

Mrs. Shaheen (for herself, Mr. Whitehouse, and Ms. Collins) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to prohibit the exclusion of 
    individuals from service on a Federal jury on account of sexual 
                    orientation or gender identity.

    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 ``Jury Access for Capable Citizens and 
Equality in Service Selection Act of 2013'' or the ``Jury ACCESS Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM FEDERAL JURIES ON ACCOUNT OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION 
              OR GENDER IDENTITY PROHIBITED.

    Section 1862 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by 
inserting ``sexual orientation, gender identity,'' after ``sex,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### MOUNT VERNON FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ALFRED S. KAMMERER, JR., AND RONALD HADLEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS GENERAL ADMINISTRATOR AND ADMINISTRATOR AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF PATRICIA LORRAINE HADLEY, DECEASED, AND DWAYNE FERRARO, RONALD HADLEY, JR., CHERYL ANNE HADLEY, AND ROBERT HADLEY, INFANTS BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM RONALD HADLEY.

March 20, 1984.

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that certification was improvidently granted;

It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed. (See 95 *N.J.*198 (1983))
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: US-Japan Interoperability, Super Bowl Flyover, Preferred Base for PegasusPublished Feb. 4, 2022
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)   --**
                This week’s look Around the Air Force highlights Airborne 22, an interoperability exercise with U.S. Air Force and Japanese paratroopers, a history-making Super Bowl flyover, and a preferred basing decision for the next set of KC-46A Pegasus aircraft. (Hosted by Airman 1st Class Garrett Hess)



For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:**- Airborne 22: US, Japan test interoperability****- Air Force Heritage Flight flyover scheduled to support Super Bowl LVI in Los Angeles****- March ARB named preferred location for next KC-46A Pegasus**Featured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131934 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 131934 

 COA: 268033 
 Wayne CC: 74-007586

CECIL T. DUNN, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 2, 2006 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1120 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

November 29, 2006 

 Clerk
- 107 -Exhibit 11.2**ENVOY COMMUNICATIONS GROUP INC.****COMPLAINT PROCEDURES FOR ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING MATTERS**

 

- 108 -Exhibit 11.2**A. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE**Envoy Audit Committee has established these procedures with respect to complaints on accounting andauditing matters (the **“Policy”)**with the objective to:establish procedures for the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints and/orconcerns received by any Envoy Communications Group Inc. (“ENVOY”) group companiesregarding accounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters; andestablish procedures for the confidential, anonymous submission by any ENVOY groupcompanies employee of concerns regarding questionable accounting or auditing matters.In this Policy, ENVOY and its subsidiaries are collectively referred to as the **“Corporations”**orindividually referred to as a **“Business Unit”.**This Policy confirms in writing the Corporations’ procedures established by the ENVOY AuditCommittee for (i) the receipt, retention and treatment of complaints and/or concerns received bythe Corporations from any person, directly or indirectly, anonymously or openly, regardingaccounting, internal accounting controls or auditing matters of the Corporations and (ii) theconfidential, anonymous submission by employees of the Corporations of concerns regardingquestionable accounting or auditing matters of the Corporations. This Policy also demonstrates theCorporations’ commitment to maintain a high standard of ethical business practices.**B. WHO IT APPLIES TO**All ENVOY’s subsidiaries shall be subject to this Policy.**C. POLICY OVERSIGHT**The ENVOY Audit Committee has the responsibility of administering this Policy and ensuringcompliance by all Business Units.**D. COMMUNICATION AND ENFORCEMENT**All directors, officers and employees of the Corporations will be advised of this Policy and itsimportance. A copy

 

- 109 -Exhibit 11.2of this Policy shall be available on ENVOY’s website (to ensure the Corporations’ stakeholders andothers are aware of this Policy) and the Corporations’ intranet websites, where applicable. A copyof this Policy shall also be provided to the directors, officers and employees of the Corporationswho are, or may be, involved in assisting in the administration of this Policy. Such directors,officers and employees are required to understand this Policy and its operation to ensurecompliance with its terms.**E. RAISING A CONCERN OR COMPLAINT**The Corporations are committed to provide a work environment based on trust and respect and enableall employees to work without fear of intimidation, discrimination or violence. As part of thiscommitment, the Corporations encourage an open and frank atmosphere in which problems, concerns orcomplaints with respect to corporate fraud, accounting, internal accounting controls or auditingmatters of the Corporations can be raised without fear of being retaliated against.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57016-57017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2522-000]


Top of the World Wind Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That 
Initial Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 
204 Authorization

September 10, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Top of the World Wind Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such 
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR 
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 30, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a

[[Page 57017]]

document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any 
FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fabcbfa8b9b5949693949fa98f8a8a95888eba9c9f8899d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="064043544549686a6f686355737676697472466063746528616970">[email protected]</span></a> or call 
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23221 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>