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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                         3,807,863
<SECURITIES>                                  31,020,102
<RECEIVABLES>                                    973,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                    1,776,618
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              38,247,451
<PP&E>                                        18,196,504
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,613,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                53,830,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6,476,695
<BONDS>                                        1,096,796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                       1,353,159
<OTHER-SE>                                    44,903,663
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  53,830,313
<SALES>                                          521,767
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 956,763
<CGS>                                            370,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  4,831,050
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               102,769
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3,451,905)
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3,451,905)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3,451,905)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.26)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2  

 

**Certification of President and Chief Executive Officer**

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Books-A-Million, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

 (i)           the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended August 4, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

| Dated: September 13, 2007 |
|---------------------------|

 

| /s/ Sandra B. Cochran                 |
|---------------------------------------|
| Sandra B. Cochran                     |
| President and Chief Executive Officer |
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2181 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2004 

Referred to the Committee on Resources 

AN ACT 

To adjust the boundary of Rocky Mountain National Park 

in the State of Colorado. 

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 ‘‘Rocky Mountain Na5 tional Park Boundary Adjustment Act of 2004’’. 
2 

S 2181 RFH 

1 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) FEDERAL PARCEL.—The term ‘‘Federal 

4 parcel’’ means the parcel of approximately 70 acres 

5 of Federal land near MacGregor Ranch, Larimer 

6 County, Colorado, as depicted on the map. 

7 (2) MAP.—The term ‘‘map’’ means the map 

8 numbered 121/80,154, dated June 2004. 

9 (3) NON-FEDERAL PARCELS.—The term ‘‘non10 Federal parcels’’ means the 3 parcels of non-Federal 

11 land comprising approximately 5.9 acres that are lo12 cated near MacGregor Ranch, Larimer County, Col13 orado, as depicted on the map. 

14 (4) PARK.—The term ‘‘Park’’ means Rocky 

15 Mountain National Park in the State of Colorado. 

16 SEC. 3. ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK BOUNDARY AD17 JUSTMENT. 

18 (a) EXCHANGE OF LAND.— 

19 (1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall accept 

20 an offer to convey all right, title, and interest in and 

21 to the non-Federal parcels to the United States in 

22 exchange for the Federal parcel. 

23 (2) CONVEYANCE.—Not later than 60 days 

24 after the date on which the Secretary receives an 

25 offer under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall con-
3 

S 2181 RFH 

1 vey the Federal parcel in exchange for the non-Fed2 eral parcels. 

3 (3) CONSERVATION EASEMENT.—As a condition 

4 of the exchange of land under paragraph (2), the 

5 Secretary shall reserve a perpetual easement to the 

6 Federal parcel for the purposes of protecting, pre7 serving, and enhancing the conservation values of 

8 the Federal parcel. 

9 (b) BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT; MANAGEMENT OF

10 LAND.—On acquisition of the non-Federal parcels under 

11 subsection (a)(2), the Secretary shall— 

12 (1) adjust the boundary of the Park to reflect 

13 the acquisition of the non-Federal parcels; and 

14 (2) manage the non-Federal parcels as part of 

15 the Park, in accordance with any laws (including 

16 regulations) applicable to the Park. 

Passed the Senate October 10, 2004. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
**Exhibit
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
        SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 The
        undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
        as
        adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
        to
        their knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
        ended September 30, 2005
        of Sport Chalet, Inc. (the "Company") fully complies with the requirements
        of
        Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
        amended,
        and that the information contained in such periodic report fairly presents,
        in
        all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
        of the
        Company as of, and for, the periods presented in such report.
 
 Date:  November
        8, 2005
 
 /s/
        Craig L.
        Levra
 Chairman
        of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
 
 /s/
        Howard K.
        Kaminsky
 Executive
        Vice President-Finance,
 Chief
        Financial Officer and Secretary
 
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
        to
        Sport Chalet, Inc and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68607-68608]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28125]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP11-1479-000]


BP Canada Energy Marketing Corp. Apache Corporation; Notice for 
Temporary Waivers

November 1, 2010.
    Take notice that on October 29, 2010, BP Canada Energy Marketing 
Corp. and Apache Corporation filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission a Joint Petition for temporary waivers of the Commission's 
capacity release regulations and policies along with the associated 
interstate pipeline transportation tariff provisions and a request for 
expedited action.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on 
the specified comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or 
protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioners. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioners.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for

[[Page 68608]]

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 email notification when a 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#692f2c3b2a26070500070c3a1c1919061b1d290f0c1b0a470e061f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="50161502131f3e3c393e35032520203f222410363522337e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll 
free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m.Eastern Time on Friday, November 5, 2010.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28125 Filed 11-5-10; 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>
#### Thos. Saterly and Wife *v.*Nathaniel Thompson.

Dower and curtesy — Possession by Husband After Death of Wife — Descent and Distribution.

Evidence shows that the husband and wife after their marriage did not live in the county in which the land of the wife was situated, during the life of the wife. *Held,*that as the husb'and never had possession of the land during the life of the first wife, he could not claim the curtesy, and a subsequent entry and possession by him would inure only to the benefit of the heir of the deceased wife.

APPEAL PROM GREENUP CIRCUIT COURT.

June 29, 1867.

Opinion op ti-ie Court by

Judge Williams:

We regard tbe evidence and circumstances as largely preponderating against the probability that Mrs. Crutclier, the mother of appellant Elizabeth, and her husband or either of them were in Greenup county after their marriage and before her death.

Appellants, Elizabeth’s mother and father, were manned in the spring of 1835, and she was born in February, 1836; her mother continued in a feeble state of health until her death in the following August.

Crutcher says neither he nor his first wife were in Greenup after their marriage up to her death and he is corroborated in this by another witness; he, therefore, never had possession of the land in controversy during the life of his first wife and, therefore, had no curtesy; his interest expired with the death of his wife and the title and right of possession descended to appellant Elizabeth *627as only heir to her deceased mother; her father’s subsequent possession and renting inured to her benefit and gave him no estate in the land; judgment should have been in favor of appellants for a recovery of the land, wherefore it is reversed with directions for further proceedings as herein indicated.

*Phister,*for Appellant.

*Harlan & I)vim,,*for Appellee.
#### J-Mar Service Center, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Mahoney, Connor & Hussey et al., Defendants, and Donal M. Mahoney et al., Appellants.

[787 NYS2d 390]

*483In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendants Donal M. Mahoney and Brian M. Hussey appeal, as limited by their brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Alpert, J.), entered June 11, 2003, which, among other things, denied that branch of the motion made by them and the defendant Mahoney, Con-nor & Hussey which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice insofar as asserted against them, and the defendant Dennis Connor separately appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of the same order which, inter alia, denied that branch of his motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.

To prevail in an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the plaintiffs must establish that the defendants “failed to exercise that degree of care, skill, and diligence commonly possessed and exercised by an ordinary member of the legal community, that such negligence was the proximate cause of the actual damages sustained by the plaintiffs, and that, but for the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiffs would have been successful in the underlying action” *(Laventure v Galeno,*307 AD2d 255 [2003]).

With regard to the defendants Donal M. Mahoney and Brian M. Hussey, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion made by them and the defendant Mahoney, Connor & Hussey which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice insofar as asserted against them *(see*CPLR 3212). To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, those defendants were required to demonstrate that the plaintiffs were unable to prove at least one of the essential elements of a cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice *(see Allen v Potruch,*282 AD2d 484 [2001]). The defendants Donal M. Mahoney and Brian M. Hussey failed to meet their burden.

Additionally, the Supreme Court correctly denied that branch of the motion of the defendant Dennis Connor which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the cause of action to recover damages for legal malpractice insofar as asserted against him *(see Schneider v Hand,*296 AD2d 454 [2002]).

*484The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Adams, J.P., Cozier, Santucci and Rivera, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL

OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT

—————————————————

IN RE GEORGE MILAM HALL, doing 

business as The Alamo,

 Debtor.

________________________________

GEORGE MILAM HALL,

 Appellant,

 v.

ERIC C. RAJALA, Trustee, DAVID R. 

KLAASSEN, and GREAT SOUTHERN 

BANK,

 Appellees. 

BAP No. KS-10-036

Bankr. No. 06-40872 

Chapter 12 

ORDER TRANSFERRING 

APPEAL

TO U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

June 10, 2010 

—————————————————

The matter before the Court is the Election (“Election”) filed by David R. 

Klaassen (“Appellee”). In the Election, Appellee has timely filed an objection to the 

disposition of this matter by this Court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(c)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8001(e), it is HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

(1) This appeal is transferred to the United States District Court.

BAP Appeal No. 10-36 Docket No. 7 Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 1 of 2
2

(2) Any deadlines, notices of deficiency, or orders to show cause 

previously set by this Court are VACATED.

(3) This Court’s record is transmitted to the United States Bankruptcy 

Court.

For the Panel: 

Barbara A. Schermerhorn, Clerk of Court

By:

Gregory Wright

Deputy Clerk

BAP Appeal No. 10-36 Docket No. 7 Filed: 06/10/2010 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Edward Farrauto, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of GeneMax Corp.;  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;  3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issueras of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 (a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (c)  disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during thesmall business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.  The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.       Date: April 29, 2005   *“Edward Farrauto”*   Edward Farrauto, Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer
II 

Calendar No. 574 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2104 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, as the ‘‘Barber Conable 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 24, 2004 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 7, 2004 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, New York, 

as the ‘‘Barber Conable Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. BARBER CONABLE POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 2 West Main Street in Batavia, 
2 

•S 2104 RS 

1 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Barber 

2 Conable Post Office Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the Barber Conable Post 

7 Office Building. 

Calendar No. 574 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2104 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice Building’’. via, New York, as the ‘‘Barber Conable Post Of- al Service located at 2 West Main Street in BataJUNE 7, 2004 

Reported without amendment
##### 



Form of Section 1350 Certification (CFO) Exhibit 32.2 SINA CORPORATION 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 SINA Corporation (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles Chao,
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; 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/ Charles Chao
#### FRANK J. PERCARPIO v. MICHAEL MANZO AND JOSEPH MANZO AND PATRICK MANZO.

June 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

UNITED STATES ) No. ACM _________

Appellee )

)

v. )

) ORDER

Anthony J. BIANCHI )

Airman First Class (E-3) )

U.S. Air Force )

Appellant ) Panel 1

On 25 July 2024, Appellant submitted a Motion to Withdraw from Appellant Review and Motion to Attach. Specifically, Appellant moved to attach a 

DD Form 2330, Waiver/Withdrawal of Appellate Rights in General and Special 

Courts-Martial Subject to Review by a Court of Criminal Appeals, signed by 

Appellant and Appellant’s counsel on 23 July 2024. The Government did not 

submit any opposition.

Accordingly, it is by the court on this 30th day of July 2024,

ORDERED:

Appellant’s Motion to Withdraw from Appellate Review and Motion to Attach are GRANTED. Appellant’s case is forwarded to the Appellate Records 

Branch (JAJM) for further processing in accordance with Rules for CourtsMartial 1115(f)(3) and 1201, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2024

ed.). 

It is further ordered:

All previous orders by this court relating to Appellant’s case are rescinded.

FOR THE COURT

OLGA STANFORD, Capt, USAF

Commissioner