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

<ARTICLE>                     5
     <CIK>                    0000839871
<NAME>                        BLACK WARRIOR
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                  1.000
<CASH>                                         376,419
<SECURITIES>                                    50,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,217,930
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,195,379
<INVENTORY>                                  4,405,339
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,319,373
<PP&E>                                      33,135,740
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,593,360
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              34,801,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       51,576,003
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,406
<OTHER-SE>                                   (583,393)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,576,003
<SALES>                                      7,379,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,712,934
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               16,564,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,484,139
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,531,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,411,676)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,503,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,411,676)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.52)





</TABLE>
<page>	EXHIBIT 32.01


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 Dean Witter Diversified
Futures Fund II L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Jeffrey
A. Rothman, President, Demeter Management Corporation, the general
partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my 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 Partnership.









By:	  /s/	Jeffrey A. Rothman

Name:		Jeffrey A. Rothman
Title:	President

Date:		November 14, 2005
#### George Snyder v. Thomas Quarton.

*Plm pais darrein*— Tender—Default *in making reply.*

A plea *puis darrein,*when proper at all, may serve in place of a notice of defence.

Tender after suit brought must conform to Comp. L. §§ 6180-1, which does not allow it to bar farther prosecution, but only to stop interest and costs and subject the plaintiff to subsequent costs, and contemplates that it may be shown on the trial.

*It seems*that a plaintiff cannot be debarred from trying issues not met by the plea merely because he is in default for not replying to a defense which covers a part of the issues only.

Error to Lenawee.

Submitted Oct. 20.

Decided Oct. 26.

Assumpsit. Plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

*JS. B. Wood*and *Millard ds Beam,*for plaintiff in error.

*Merrit <& Woodin*and *W. A. Underwood*for defendant in error.

Campbell, J.

Quarton was sued by Snyder as guarantor of tbe payment of two years’ rent on a lease made by Snyder to one Houlden. He pleaded the general issue, and gave notice of defense to tbe first of tbe instalments that plaintiff bad extended tbe time on it without bis consent. Suit was begun in March, 1880.

On tbe 18th of May, 1881, defendant by leave of tbe court filed what is claimed to be a plea *puis darrein ■ eontinuanee,*setting up a tender after suit brought of tbe remaining instalment and costs up to that time. Tbe plea also repeated tbe defence of extension as to tbe prior instalment.

Plaintiff demurred for several reasons, among which were that tbe plea included matters not occurring since tbe last continuance; that it was double; that it set up no legal bar to tbe prosecution of tbe suit; and that it was not a proper plea of the nature it claimed to be.

*212Tbe court overruled the demurrer with leave to reply,, and on default of replication gave judgment for the defendant that plaintiff take nothing by his suit, and that defendant recover costs since the tender.

If this were a proper subject for such a plea, we have held that such a plea is proper instead of a notice. *Johnson v. Kibbee*36 Mich. 269.

But a tender after suit brought can only be made under the statute. Comp. L. §§ 6180, 6181. This does not allow such a tender to bar the further prosecution of the suit, but: only to stop interest and costs, and to subject the plaintiff to-subsequent costs. The statute by its terms contemplates, that such a tender may be shown on the trial. § 6181.

It may be remarked that it would be a very strange result if on default for replying to a defense covering only half' the issues the plaintiff could under any circumstances be-debarred from trying the rest. But the particular defects need not be dwelt upon, since the matter set up does not go-in bar of the action at all.

The judgment must be reversed and the plea set aside-, with costs, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

The other Justices concurred.
No. 87-1015.

#### Monahan et al. *v.*Federal Trade Commission.

C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.
IB 

Union Calendar No. 62 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1615 

[Report No. 118–85] 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 17, 2023 

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

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

JUNE 1, 2023 

Additional sponsors: Mrs. LESKO, Mr. LAWLER, Mr. KILEY, Mrs. MILLER of 

Illinois, and Mrs. PELTOLA

JUNE 1, 2023 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union 

and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1615 RH

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas stoves. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 1615 RH

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 ‘‘Gas Stove Protection 

5 and Freedom Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS. 

7 In this Act: 

8 (1) COMMISSION.—The term ‘‘Commission’’ 

9 means the Consumer Product Safety Commission. 

10 (2) GAS STOVE.—The term ‘‘gas stove’’ means 

11 any gas range, gas stove, or household cooking gas 

12 appliance that meets the standard set forth in Amer13 ican National Standards Institute (ANSI) Z21.1/ 

14 CSA Z21.1 or any successor standard. 

15 (3) SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE THE AVERAGE

16 PRICE OF GAS STOVES.—The term ‘‘substantially in17 crease the average price of gas stoves’’ means that 

18 the average price of a gas stove, annualized over its 

19 expected life, would likely be substantially higher 

20 than the average spending by United States home21 owners on cooking stoves and ovens based on the 

22 most recent data for consumer expenditures reported 

23 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 1615 RH

1 SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON CPSC BANNING GAS STOVES. 

2 No Federal funds may be used by the Commission 

3 to regulate a gas stove as a banned hazardous product 

4 under section 8 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 

5 U.S.C. 2057) or to impose or enforce any consumer prod6 uct safety standard or rule on gas stoves under section 

7 7 or 9 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2056 or 2058) that would 

8 otherwise result in a prohibition on the use or sale of gas 

9 stoves in the United States or would otherwise substan10 tially increase the average price of gas stoves in the United 

11 States. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Union Calendar No. 62 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1615 

[Report No. 118–85] 

A BILL 

To prohibit the use of Federal funds to ban gas 

stoves. 

JUNE 1, 2023 

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION

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), each of the undersigned officers of Mitsui & Co., Ltd. (the Company), hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F
for the year ended March 31, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: September 26, 2007



By

/s/    SHOEI
UTSUDAName:

Shoei UtsudaTitle:

President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)By

/s/    KAZUYA
IMAIName:

Kazuya ImaiTitle:

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
10768.

#### Callaway *v.*Globe & Rutgers Fire Insurance Co.

Stephens, J.

1. Where suit is brought against a defendant who is the insured under a fire-insurance policy, and, after loss has occurred, the plaintiff serves summons of garnishment upon the insurer, seeking to subject to garnishment whatever indebtedness is due under the policy from the insurer to the insured, the plaintiff may, since the policy furnishes the standard by which the amount of the liability may be ascertained and fixed, recover against the garnishee upon proof of the defendant’s claim against the garnishee and the defendant’s debt to the plaintiff. 59 L. R. A. 366, note; 12 R. C. L. 804.

2. Where the garnishee, after having been served with summons of garnishment, and before final answer, enters into an agreement of settlement with the defendant and pays the amount agreed upon into court, such settlement does not bar the plaintiff from asserting -in his own behalf the rights of the defendant against the garnishee under the insurance policy. Drake on Attachments, § 453; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 867. See, in this connection, Civil Code (1910), § 5124; 13 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law (2d ed.), 326.

3. Such an agreement by the insurer and payment of the sum agreed upon into court amounts to an adjustment of the claim with the insured, and may amount to a waiver by the insurer of the conditions in the policy, if any, precedent to the right of the insured to recover under the policy. 19 Cyc. 805. The garnishing creditor may take advantage of such waiver, and, upon proof of the insured’s actual 'loss under the policy, not exceeding the face value of the policy, and his own claim against the defendant, may recover against the garnishee.

4. The answer of the garnishee setting up as a defense such a settlement with the insured and a failure of the insured to comply with certain stipulations in the policy as to warranty and as to proof of loss, alleged by the garnishee as conditions precedent to its liability, and the evidence introduced by the plaintiff in support of his traverse to the answer of the garnishee tending to show that the property insured was at the time of the loss worth considerably more than the amount of the adjustment made in the settlement between the garnishee and the defendant, and the garnishee, by its action in adjusting the loss and paying the amount agreed upon into court, having *650waived its right to insist upon any of the terms or conditions of the policy as conditions precedent to its liability, and the evidence not demanding the inference that there was a breach of warranty by the insured, a verdict sustaining the garnishee’s answer was improperly directed.

Decided September 27, 1920.

Garnishment; from Fulton superior court — Judge Reid. May 5, 1919.

*Hines, Hardwick & Jordan,*for plaintiff.

*Moore & Pomeroy,*contra.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
Exhibit 32.1
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. §1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
     In connection with the Quarterly Report of AMDL, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary L. Dreher, ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.     /s/ GARY L. DREHER Gary L. Dreher Chief Executive Officer August 11, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6817

WERNER JOSEPH MATTHEWS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

TOM C. MARTIN, Warden/CEO,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CA-95-550-5-BR)

Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 6, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Werner Joseph Matthews, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh,

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant noted this appeal outside the thirty-day appeal

period established by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), failed to obtain an

extension of the appeal period within the additional thirty-day

period provided by Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), and is not entitled to

relief under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The time periods for filing

notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods

are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of

Corrections, 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v.

Robinson, 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court entered its

order on April 16, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed at

the earliest on May 17, 1996. Appellant's failure to note a timely

appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period deprives this

court of jurisdiction to consider this case. We therefore deny a

certificate of probable cause to appeal; to the extent that a certificate of appealability is required, we deny such a certificate,

and dismiss the appeal. 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
NICE Community Coordinating Council

Modernize Talent Management Working Group

1. Project Team Name

Talent Retention – Why People Leave and Why People Stay

2. Project Team Purpose

The MTM Talent Retention project team will develop recommendations for HR leaders, cybersecurity

managers and individual contributors to address factors that cause people to leave or stay in their

cybersecurity role or the field altogether.

3. Project Team Objectives

The objective of this working project group is to examine the reasons people leave their cybersecurity job

or the entire field of cybersecurity. The team will leverage existing research as well as conduct primary

research to include perspectives of HR leaders, cybersecurity managers and individual contributors. An

analysis of research results will enable identification of best practices and guidance to encourage a

better cultural fit for individual contributors in cybersecurity roles and reduced turnover among staff.

This project supports Strategy Objective 3.5 - Encourage and enable ongoing development and training of

employees, including rotational and exchange programs, to foster and keep current talent with diverse

skills and experiences.

4. Project Team Deliverables

a. Literature review - document existing research of contributing factors to employee dissatisfaction

b. Survey - design, test and field a survey for HR leaders, cybersecurity managers and cybersecurity

individual contributors to answer the question “what actions can managers and organizations take

to retain talent?”

c. White paper - using the information in the survey results and from the literature review, author

guidance for organizations and individuals on recommendations for addressing the factors that

cause talent to leave either an organization, or the field. Include conversational guidance that any

manager can use in communicating with their team that might identify people considering leaving.

5. Roles and Responsibilities

Project co-leads: Jessie Bolton and Terry Leach

Team members: Olesya Menon, Marian Merritt, Arianna Schuler Scott, Girish Seshagiri, Nelson Abbott

January 2024
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 149 

To prohibit the disbursement of Federal funds to State and local governments 

that allow individuals who are not citizens of the United States to 

vote in any Federal, State, or local election. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 9, 2023 

Mr. DUNCAN (for himself, Mr. BALDERSON, Mr. BANKS, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. 

BISHOP of North Carolina, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. BUCK, Mr. CALVERT, 

Mrs. CAMMACK, Mr. CARTER of Georgia, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. DAVIDSON, Mr. FINSTAD, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GALLAGHER, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. GOSAR, Mr. GUEST, Mrs. HARSHBARGER, Mr. JACKSON of Texas, 

Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. MCHENRY, Mrs. MILLER of Illinois, Mrs. MILLERMEEKS, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. PERRY, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. POSEY, Mr. 

RESCHENTHALER, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. RUTHERFORD, Mr. SESSIONS, 

Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Ms. TENNEY, Mr. TIMMONS, Mr. WALTZ, Mr. 

WEBER of Texas, and Mr. WOMACK) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability 

A BILL 

To prohibit the disbursement of Federal funds to State and 

local governments that allow individuals who are not 

citizens of the United States to vote in any Federal, 

State, or local election. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 149 IH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Our Democ3 racy by Preventing Foreign Citizens from Voting Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FEDERAL PAYMENT RESTRICTION. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, no Federal funds may be made available to 

7 any State or local government if such State or local gov8 ernment allows individuals who are not citizens of the 

9 United States to vote in any Federal, State, or local elec10 tion. 

11 (b) CERTIFICATION.—Upon application, approval, 

12 and receipt of any Federal funds, a State or local govern13 ment shall certify that the State or local government does 

14 not permit individuals who are not citizens of the United 

15 States to vote in any Federal, State, or local election. 

16 (c) APPLICABILITY.—The requirements of this sec17 tion shall only apply with respect to any contract entered 

18 into or grant made on or after the date of the enactment 

19 of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF SANTA FE PACIFIC PIPELINE PARTNERS, L.P. AS
OF AND FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          53,121
<SECURITIES>                                     4,696
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,539
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                94,684
<PP&E>                                         737,434
<DEPRECIATION>                                 112,344
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 738,594
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,081
<BONDS>                                        355,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     270,091
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   738,594
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,621
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              26,923
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,470
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             53,470
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    51,745
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.61
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.61
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 99.4

        CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350
        -----------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Black Warrior Wireline Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald
Whitter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 results of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Ronald Whitter
    --------------------



Ronald Whitter
Chief Financial Officer
May 14, 2003