alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Election Commission

# AGENCY:

Federal Election Commission.

# Date and Time:

Tuesday, May 12, 2009, at 10 a.m.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009, at 10 a.m.

# Place:

999 E Street, NW., Washington, DC.

# Status:

These meetings will be closed to the public.

# Items To Be Discussed:

 

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.

Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, section 438(b), and Title 26, U.S.C.

Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.

Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a particular employee.

* * * * *

# Person To Contact for Information:

Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Mary W. Dove,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. E9-10952 Filed 5-12-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6715-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND THE STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE
QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED AS PART OF ITS
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD MARCH 31, 1999
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         750,122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  168,939
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               919,061
<PP&E>                                       9,360,333
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,384,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,894,879
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,894,879
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,894,879
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               206,463
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  150,961
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   106,339
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana et al., Appellants, v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, Respondent. Marc S. Kirschner, as Trustee of the Refco Litigation Trust, Appellant, v KPMG LLP et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.

Submitted August 2, 2010;

decided August 26, 2010

Motion by the Center for Audit Quality for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on consideration of the certified questions herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KRISTI ANNE MOODY, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 05-363.

Submitted on Briefs March 15, 2006.

Decided May 23, 2006.

Order Staying Opinion July 12, 2006.

2006 MT 112.

332 Mont. 205.

_P.3d_.

ORDER

The State of Montana has filed a petition for rehearing and has, as supplemental authority, provided a copy of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in *Samson v. California,*2006 WL 1666974 (2006), which raises questions about the validity of this Court’s line of authority beginning with *State v. Burke*(1988), 235 Mont. 165, 169, 766 P.2d 254, 256-57, which held that, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a probation officer must have reasonable cause to conduct a warrantless search of a probationer.

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in *Samson,*we deem it appropriate to stay our decision in *State v. Moody*until further order of the Court and to order further briefing on the underlying issue presented therein.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

1. Our decision in *State v. Moody,*2006 MT 112 (Cause No. 05-363), is hereby stayed pending further order of the Court.

2. The parties shall file simultaneous briefs on or before Friday, August 11, 2006, addressing the following question:

> In light of the United States Supreme Court’s holding in *Samson v. California,*2006 WL 1666974, may probation officers conduct “home visits” of probationers without having reasonable cause for doing so?”

No reply briefs will be allowed.

3. The Clerk is directed to mail a true copy of this order to counsel of record for the respective parties.

DATED this 12th day of July, 2006.

CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY, JUSTICES LEAPHART, NELSON, *206WARNER and MORRIS.
Exhibit 11.1

                             EQUIVEST FINANCE, INC.
                        Computation of Earnings Per Share

                    For the Quarter Ended September 30, 1999
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Income            Shares      Per-Share
                                               (Numerator)       (Denominator)    Amount
                                               -----------       -------------    ------
<S>                                            <C>                <C>             <C>
Net Income                                     $ 2,911,796
Less: Preferred Stock dividends                   (150,000)
                                               -----------
Basic earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders        2,761,796        25,688,351      $ .11
                                                                                  =====

Effect of dilutive securities:
  Warrants                                                            87,117
  Stock options                                                      410,848
                                               -----------        ----------

Diluted earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders
    plus assumed conversions                   $ 2,761,796        26,186,316      $ .11
                                               ===========       ===========      =====
</TABLE>

                    For the Quarter Ended September 30, 1998
                    ----------------------------------------
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Income            Shares      Per-Share
                                               (Numerator)       (Denominator)    Amount
                                               -----------       -------------    ------
<S>                                            <C>                <C>             <C>
Net Income                                     $ 1,234,395
Less: Preferred Stock dividends                   (150,000)
                                               -----------
Basic earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders        1,084,395        23,053,532      $ .05
                                                                                  =====

Effect of dilutive securities:
  Warrants                                                            95,246
  Stock options                                                      393,485
                                               -----------        ----------

Diluted earnings per share:
  Income available to common stockholders
    plus assumed conversions                   $ 1,084,395        23,542,263      $ .05
                                               ===========       ===========      =====
</TABLE>


                                       27
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"National Intelligence University","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu","author_name":"ray.x.villarreal@odni.gov","author_url":"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/author\/ray-x-villarrealodni-gov\/","title":"Locations","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"U5L0TP5XWN\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/locations\/\">Locations<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.ni-u.edu\/locations\/embed\/#?secret=U5L0TP5XWN\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Locations” — National Intelligence University\" data-secret=\"U5L0TP5XWN\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
Exhibit 23.1





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To The Board of Directors of
 China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc
 
 We consent to the use of our report dated September 28, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc as of June 30, 2010 and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for the year ended June 30, 2010 which report appeared in the June 30, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K/A of China Advanced Construction Materials Group, Inc.
 
 /S/ Frazer Frost, LLP
 
 
 Brea, California
  September 26, 2011
#### Tiffany *against*Driggs & Lynch.

Where *■ an «attorney is. sued in a justice's' court, jointly • with another defendant, he. cannot plead in abatement, that .the court, of which he is ap attorney, is then,sitting.

IN ERROR, ón. *éertiorari*to a justice’s cq.uit-

The plaintiff in error brought an action of *assumpsit,*against the defendants', in the court below, for ■ work and labour; the defendants pleaded, that *Lynch,.one*of the,defendants, was:an., attorney ; of the supreme court, which was. then sitting. The plaintiff objected that thé supreme court was .not sitting when the summons was issued, but-. the justice decided that- this 'was immaterial, and the plaintiff haviñg no furthef;answer;'tlíéj.üstice-gave judgment for the defendants.'

*Per Curiam.*

The first' section of the áct ;for-tlié recovery .of debts to the value of 2-5 dollars, (1 N. *R. L.*387.,) gives cog- , nizan'ce to a justice of the peace of all actions not exceeding -25 dollars, as well .against attorneys, and other officers of any court of justice in this state, (except during the sitting óf'siich court,),ás others,; • ,•

Before the passing . of this statute, it must be conceded that an. attorney, in no court of justice, could be allowed to plead his - privilege, when prosecuted, jojntly with .others; and the above section does not enlarge' this privilege sp as to extend it to such a case. It- evidently intends no .more, than that an attorney shall not avail himself of the privilege he was entitled to .before the. passing of the apt, except during the sitting: of the court, and the law remains unaltered.- when he is sued jointly with another. , • > . ;;

. jLywc/i haying been prosecuted jointly with *Driggs,*his plea of privilege ought not to'have been aHowed by the justice. It was, therefore, unimportant wlfothey thp cónrt,'pf which he was §r attorney,, was in., session., at the timé the' sumrrfons .issued; o, \yhen the trial took place ; it is-manifest, that the proceedings of the justice, were/erroneous in extending tohim a privilege to which lie was nqt entitled, The judgment must, therefore, be .reversed..' \ ’ ■■■■ ; - „

Judgment reversed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

** **

I, Mitchell M.Cohen, certify that:

** **

1.         Ihave reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Ramp Corporation;

 

2.         Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.         Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.         Theregistrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

c)         Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.         Theregistrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant's internal controls over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 14,2004

 

By:       /s/Mitchell M. Cohen     Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          44,500
<SECURITIES>                                    13,200
<RECEIVABLES>                                  305,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,300
<INVENTORY>                                    390,100
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               894,000
<PP&E>                                       5,273,500
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,054,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,105,600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          492,000
<BONDS>                                      2,415,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       125,200
<OTHER-SE>                                     991,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,105,600
<SALES>                                        620,800
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               620,800
<CGS>                                          467,200
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  502,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 77,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                    28,900
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             48,200
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    48,200
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42


</TABLE>
#### Jones v. Town of Angier

Case below: 181 N.C. App. 121

No. 080P07

1. Def’s (Town of Angier) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-391)

2. Pit’s (David Jones) Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

1. Denied 03/08/07

2. Dismissed as Moot 03/08/07
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED January 6, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60956 Summary Calendar

SHEHLA SHEIKH, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A72-450-369

-------------------- Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Petitioner Shehla Sheikh seeks review of an order from the Board of Immigration Appeals ("BIA") denying a motion to reconsider the denial of a motion to reopen deportation proceedings. Sheikh and her husband, Mirza A. Baig, remained in the United States beyond their voluntary departure date, and the BIA held that they were statutorily ineligible for an adjustment of status and denied a motion to reopen. Sheikh contends that "exceptional circumstances" exist to excuse her failure to depart under voluntary departure, thereby warranting the reopening ofNo. 03-60956 -2- the proceedings. She further argues that the BIA violated due process by denying the motion to reopen before the Immigration and Naturalization Service responded to a request for an extension of the voluntary departure date. Sheikh's brief is nearly identical to the brief filed by Baig in a separate petition for review, which we have already denied. Therefore, for substantially the same reasons previously articulated in Baig's appeal, Sheikh's petition for review is denied. See Baig v. Ashcroft , No. 03-60592 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2004)(unpublished).
PETITION DENIED.
##### 



Exhibit 31 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Sam B. Humphries, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2005 of Uroplasty, Inc.
(the Registrant); and 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report. Date: August 3, 2005.By
    
    /s/ Sam B. HumphriesSam B. Humphries, President and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Daniel G. Holman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended March 31, 2005 of Uroplasty, Inc.
(the Registrant); and 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or
omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report. Date: August 3, 2005.By
    
    /s/ Daniel G. HolmanDaniel G. Holman, Chief Financial Officer