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



<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         984,614
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,540,047
<PP&E>                                      26,106,668
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,831,155
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              14,815,560
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          925,474
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (979,840)<F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                14,815,560
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,036,039
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,983,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             905,649
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                147,275
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            147,275
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   147,275
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    63.94<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0

<FN>

<F1>This entity is a limited partnership. The Other Stockholders Equity line
    represents total partnership equity.

<F2>The EPS-Primary line represents net income (loss) per limited partnership 
    unit.

</FN>

        



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32

                                  EXHIBIT 32(a)
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 11, 2004



/s/ Roy T. Eddleman
-------------------------------------
Roy T. Eddleman
Chief Executive Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.





                                  EXHIBIT 32(b)
                      18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


I hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, that the accompanying Form 10-QSB of Spectrum Laboratories, Inc., (the
"Company") for the quarterly period ended March 27, 2004 fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d); and that the information contained in this Form 10-QSB
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Dated: May 11, 2004



/s/ Brian A. Watts
-------------------------------------
Brian A. Watts
Chief Financial Officer
Spectrum Laboratories, Inc.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 23-0335

IN THE MATTER OF:

O.K.,

Respondent and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including December 22, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 17 2023

11/17/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0335
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997 
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          35,998
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         264,910
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                13,825
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     89,112
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          35,535
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           126,162
<LOANS>                                        210,519
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 399,170
<DEPOSITS>                                     323,832
<SHORT-TERM>                                    19,385
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              3,896
<LONG-TERM>                                      2,989
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            29
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 399,170
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,316
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,993
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   105
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,414
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,648
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,776
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            3,638
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      128
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  15
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  3,899
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,850
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,850
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,267
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.44
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    .019
<LOANS-NON>                                        166
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,949
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,730
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,381
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      124
<RECOVERIES>                                        36
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,389
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,467
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            922
        

</TABLE>
================================================================================

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                                 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 Arkson Neutraceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, David Roff, Chief Executive 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 Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.


Dated: August 26, 2010


/s/ "David Roff"


David Roff
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: The District Court of the 5th Judicial District. County of Beaverhead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, *9vs. MICHAEL HAMMOND, Defendant,

*8CAUSE NO. DC-08-3250 *9DECISION

On November 6, 2008, the defendant was sentenced to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a term of five (5) years, with an additional three (3) years suspended for the offense of Theft, a felony.

On February 12,2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Eric Olson. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The sentence that was imposed and the information provided to the Division shows that the sentence is ambiguous. The Division is requiring counsel, Eric Olson, to file a formal Motion of Clarification of this sentence with Honorable Loren Tucker.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the application for review of sentence shall be continued for clarification to the next available sentence review hearing date in May 2009.

Done in open Court this 12th day of February, 2009.

DATED this 27th day of February, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
##### 



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm The Board of Directors
The Keith Companies, Inc.: We consent to the use of our reports dated March 4, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance
sheets of The Keith Companies, Inc. as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated
statements of income, shareholders equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2004, managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, incorporated by reference in this registration
statement (No. 333-124748) on Form F-4 of Stantec Inc. and to the reference to our firm under the
heading Experts in the proxy statement/prospectus.  /s/   KPMG LLP Costa Mesa, California
June 22, 2005
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raoul Baldwin, Appellant.

[974 NYS2d 822]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (William D. Walsh, J.), rendered April 13, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted kidnapping in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted kidnapping in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 135.20). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal *(see generally People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence *(see id.*at 255; *see generally People v Lococo,*92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; *People v Hidalgo,*91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Present — Scudder, EJ., Smith, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Louis R. Rosenthal, an Attorney, Appellant. Committee on Professional Standards, Respondent.

Submitted January 20, 2009;

decided February 17, 2009

Motion for leave to appeal denied. Motion for a stay dismissed as academic.
No. 108 SSM 18

The People &c.,

Respondent,

v.

Jaime Cruz,

Appellant.

Submitted by Harold V. Ferguson, Jr., for appellant.

Submitted by Alan Gadlin, for respondent.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules, order reversed and

accusatory instrument dismissed. As the People acknowledge, the accusatory

instrument's misdemeanor count, to which defendant pleaded guilty, was facially

deficient ( see People v Hill , 38 NY3d 460, 462 [2022]). The People consent to dismissal

of the remaining portion of the accusatory instrument. Acting Chief Judge Cannataro and

Judges Rivera, Garcia, Wilson, Singas and Troutman concur.

Decided December 13, 2022
Sally S. Aiken, MD

Dr. Aiken graduated from Washington State University in 

Bacteriology and Public Health, the first in her class. She attended 

Medical School at the University of Washington, then was a 

rotating intern at Swedish Hospital in Seattle. Her Pathology 

residency was completed at Oregon Health Sciences University, 

and she was chief resident during her last year. She was a Forensic 

Pathology fellow at the King County Medical Examiner’s Office. Dr. 

Aiken is board-certified by the American Board of Pathology in 

Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, and in Forensic Pathology.

Her first practice years were as a member of a private pathology group that contracted with the 

San Joaquin County Sheriff-Coroner. She returned to Washington State in 2000, a year after the 

Spokane County Coroner converted to a Medical Examiner system, the conversion initiated by a 

county advisory ballot. Dr. Aiken became chief of the Spokane County Medical Examiner’s 

Office in 2001 and remained at the office until retiring in 2021. Under her leadership the office 

became NAME-accredited and built a new state-of-the-art facility. The office serves Spokane 

County and performs autopsies for multiple coroner counties in Washington and the Idaho 

panhandle. She has performed more than 9,000 autopsies.

Dr. Aiken has served on numerous committees for the National Association of Medical 

Examiners (NAME), was President of NAME in 2020, and received three NAME service awards.

She was an original member of OSAC’s Quality Infrastructure Committee (QIC) and served on it 

for a 4-year term. Dr. Aiken was appointed to the FSSB in 2022 and serves as the NAME 

representative.
A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s ti n the det erm i nat i on o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h is c a se is ther efor e s ubm i t t ed w i thoutor al ar gum ent . T hi s or derand j udgm enti s not bi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue cons i s t ent w i th Fed. R . A pp. P. 32. 1 and 10th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t9,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT CL A RI SSA W ELL S,

P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, N o. 07- 1062 v. ( D i s tr i ctof C ol or ado) J ON ATH AN J AM ES F ERN AN DEZ, a n d DO NN A FERN AN DEZ,

D efen dan t s- A pp el l ees. ( D . C . N o . 0 6 - C V - 0 2 3 1 5 - Z L W)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e B RI S CO E , EBEL , and M c CO NNELL , C i rcui tJudg es. T his autom ob i l e t ortsui tw as di sm i ssed from fede ral dis tri ctcou rtbecau se the part i es ’ ci t i zens hi p w as notcompl et el ydi ver s e. T he pl ai nt i ff, A ppel l ant Cl a r i s s a We l l s , r e s i d e s i n Au r o r a , Co l o r a d o . Am o n g t h e d e fe n d a n t s a r e t wo p e rso n s, Jo n a th a n a n d D o n n a F e rn a n d e z , w h o th e c o m p lain t alle g e s re sid e in D e n v e r, C o lo ra d o . Id. U nderl ongs t andi ng pr ece dent , a fe der al courthas d iv e rsityju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 (a ) to e n ter tain sta te- law c laim s o n ly-2-

w hen “ each d e fe n d a n ti s a c i t i z e n o f a d i ffe r e n tS t a t e f

r o m each pl ai nt i ff. ” O w en E qui p. & Ere ct i on C o. v. Kr oger , 4 3 7 U .S . 3 6 5 , 3 7 3 (1 9 7 8 ). M s. W e lls a rg u e d in d istric t co u rt a n d re itera tes o n a p p e a l th a t th e re is n o e v id e n c e e ith e r w a yto es t abl i s h the ci t i zens hi p of the defendant s . T hi s ar gum entdoes nothi ng t o fur t her M s. W e lls’s c a u se . A s th e p e rso n in v o k in g fe d e ra l co u rt ju risd ictio n , M s. W e lls bear s the bur den of pr ovi ng thatboth thi s C our tand the di s tr i ctcourthave s ubj ect m a tte r j u ri s d ic tio n . McNut tv. G en. Mot ors A cce ptance Corp. , 298 U . S. 178, 189 (1 9 3 6 ); P ent eco Corp. Ltd. P ’s hi p— 1985A v. Uni on G as Sys . , Inc. , 929 F. 2d 15 19 , 15 21 (10t h C i r. 19 91 ). If s he is corr ectthat no ev i den ce exis t s t o est abli sh the d efen dan t s’ ci t i zenship, this fai l ure of p roof i s an add i t i on al reas on that M s. W e lls’s c laim sh o u ld b e d ism iss e d w ith o u t p reju d ice

— n o t a r e a so n to re in sta te h er law su it . T h ere fo re, M s. W ell s’ APP EAL I S DI S M I S S ED . A ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on t o pr ocee d in fo rm a p a u p e ris i s GRANT ED . E n te re d fo r t h e C o u rt , M ich a e l W . M c C o n n e ll C i r cui tJ udge
#### In the Matter of Shane Hyatt, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[973 NYS2d 479]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, was charged in a misbehavior report with disobeying a direct order, interfering with staff, having an untidy cell, engaging in violent conduct and creating a disturbance based upon an incident wherein petitioner failed to remove paper that was covering his cell vent, refused to cooperate with cell frisk procedures and had to be forcibly extracted from his cell. In a subsequent misbehavior report, petitioner was again charged with interfering with staff due to his attempt to block staff access to his cell during the extraction procedure with sheets, pillow cases, pillows, a mattress and towels. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty of having an untidy cell, disobeying a direct order and the latter charge of interfering with staff. The remaining charges were dismissed. On administrative appeal, the determination was up*1295held. Petitioner thereafter commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Initially, respondent concedes, and we agree, that the record does not support the finding of guilt with regard to the charge of having an untidy cell. Accordingly, the determination must be annulled to that extent and, given the undischarged penalty and recommended loss of good time, the matter must be remitted to respondent for a redetermination of the penalty *(see Matter of Tarbell v Prack,*89 AD3d 1342, 1342 [2011]; *Matter of Gomez v Leclaire,*53 AD3d 994, 995 [2008]).

With regard to the remaining two charges, we confirm. The misbehavior reports, unusual incident report, use of force report and hearing testimony provide substantial evidence supporting the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Barnes v Prack,*87 AD3d 1251, 1252 [2011]; *Matter of Williams v Goord,*36 AD3d 1033, 1033 [2007]). We reject petitioner’s contention that the DVDs depicting the extraction compel a different conclusion, as the content thereof does not provide conclusive proof on the pertinent facts of these charges *(see Matter of Cicio v Fischer,*100 AD3d 1226, 1227 [2012]). To the extent that petitioner’s remaining contentions are not rendered moot by our decision, we have considered them and find them to be without merit.

Rose, J.P., McCarthy, Spain and Garry, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is modified, without costs, by annulling so much thereof as found petitioner guilty of having an untidy cell and imposed a penalty; petition granted to that extent, respondent is directed to expunge all references to this charge from petitioner’s institutional record and matter remitted to respondent for an administrative redetermination of the penalty on the remaining violations; and, as so modified, confirmed.
`[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3613 Reported in Senate (RS)]







                                                       Calendar No. 568
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3613

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the ``Major 
                  George Quamo Post Office Building''.


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 29, 2006

  Mrs. Clinton (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

                             August 1, 2006

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL


 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the ``Major 
                  George Quamo Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. MAJOR GEORGE QUAMO POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Major George Quamo Post Office 
Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Major 
George Quamo Post Office Building''.
                                                       Calendar No. 568

109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3613

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the ``Major 
                  George Quamo Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             August 1, 2006

                       Reported without amendment`