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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       8,061,884
<SECURITIES>                                 1,466,372
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,528,256
<PP&E>                                      19,405,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              28,933,596
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          214,843
<BONDS>                                        717,677
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  28,001,076
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                28,933,596
<SALES>                                      1,621,323
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,075,643
<CGS>                                          284,912
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  284,912
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               606,100
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,184,631
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,184,631
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,184,631
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    24.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    24.04
        

</TABLE>
we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan, 120 

Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE CLERK 

OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS instructing the 

district court to vacate its March 28, 2014, order and to grant petitioner's 

motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint in District Court Case No. 

A691418. 

Gibbon7924L-, C. J. 

s 

J. 

Pickering 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Brooks Hubley LLP 

Atkinson & Watkins, LLP 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) I94Th (400
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to

§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the Annual Report of Hemagen Diagnostics, Inc., (the Company), on Form 10-KSB for the period ending September 30, 2008,
(the Report), I, Catherine M. Davidson, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 operation of the Company.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                           
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/ Catherine M. Davidson  
|Catherine M. Davidson      
|Principal Financial Officer

December 19, 2008
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3247 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to fair and reasonable 

fees for credit scores. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 22, 2010 

Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. 

KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. SHAHEEN, and Mr. UDALL of New Mexico) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act with respect to 

fair and reasonable fees for credit scores. 

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 ‘‘Fair Access to Credit 

5 Scores Act of 2010’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CREDIT SCORE DISCLOSURE FEES. 

7 Section 609(f)(8) of the Fair Credit Reporting Act 

8 (15 U.S.C. 1681g(f)(8)) is amended to read as follows: 

9 ‘‘(8) FREE ANNUAL CREDIT SCORE.— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3247 IS

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Section 612(a) shall 

2 apply to each consumer reporting agency de3 scribed in subsections (p) and (w) of section 

4 603 in making disclosures pursuant to this sub5 section. 

6 ‘‘(B) REASONABLE FEES.—Other than 

7 with respect to a free annual disclosure, as pro8 vided in subparagraph (A) and section 612(a), 

9 a consumer reporting agency may charge a fair 

10 and reasonable fee, as determined by the Com11 mission, for providing the information required 

12 under this subsection.’’. 

13 SEC. 3. CONFORMING AMENDMENT. 

14 Section 612(a)(1)(A) of the Fair Credit Reporting 

15 Act (15 U.S.C. 1681j(a)(1)(A)) is amended by inserting 

16 ‘‘, including disclosure of a credit score under section 

17 609(f)(8),’’ before ‘‘once’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
|   | 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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:   July      14, 2010 |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   |
| /s/ C. Stephen Cochennet                  |   |
| C.      Stephen Cochennet,                |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer              |   |
| (Principal      Executive Officer)        |   |

----
# EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION
ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER









The undersigned, Jeffrey J. Steiner,
Chief Executive Officer of The Fairchild Corporation (Company), hereby
certifies that (1) the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the Annual Period
Ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) 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 the
results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 14, 2004

/s/ JEFFREY J. STEINER Jeffrey J. Steiner

      Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer



# Exhibit 32.2

# CERTIFICATION
ACCOMPANYING PERIODIC REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER









The
undersigned, John L. Flynn, Chief Financial Officer of The Fairchild Corporation
(Company), hereby certifies that (1) the Annual Report of the Company on Form
10-K for the Annual Period Ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 the results of operations of the Company.

Date: December 14, 2004

/s/ JOHN L. FLYNN
John L. Flynn
      Chief
Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Tax
**Handcrew/Non IHC (2011) Checklist #17**

**Handcrew/Non-IHCChecklist #14**

For the National Preparedness Review you will need to have the following items available for review.

**17-1Revised 3/1/2014**

**14-1Revised 2014**
*Thursday, May 8, 1997*

MOTION DOCKET

95-2279.

#### Feichtner v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.

Franklin App. No. 95API01-47. On May 6, 1997, appellant filed a document titled “Appellant’s Request Pursuant to Rule XXII.” Appellant requests a waiver of the prohibition against filing a reply to a memorandum opposing a motion found in S.Ct.Prac.R. XIV(4)(B), in order to file a reply to appellee’s memorandum opposing appellant’s motion for reconsideration. Whereas there is no provision in S.CtPrac.R. XI permitting the filing of a reply to a memorandum opposing a motion for reconsideration; and whereas S.CtPrac.R. XXII is not applicable because appellant’s motion for reconsideration was not pending when S.CtPrac.R. XIV(4XB) became effective; and whereas S.CtPrac.R. XIV(4)(B) prohibits the filing of a reply to a memorandum opposing a motion,

IT IS ORDERED by the court, *sua sponte,*that appellant’s request pursuant to Rule XXII be, and hereby is, stricken.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 18, 2010 

d0615 

Order 

 

June 18, 2010 

141121 

LLOYD WALTON WILLIAMS, JR. 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141121 

 COA: 293536 

Genesee Circuit Court Family 

MARIA CRISTINA CHAVEZ-WILLIAMS, Division: 03-250460-DM 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 13, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Balvir SINGH, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AFFAIRS, et al. Respondents.

No. 03-4101-ag.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Nov. 8, 2006.

*943Brian E. Mezger, Bethesda, MD, for Petitioner.

Robin W. Morey, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Michael J. Garcia, United States Attorney; Sara L. Shudofsky, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel), New York, NY, for Respondents.

PRESENT: Hon. ROGER J. MINER, Hon. ROBERT D. SACK and Hon. ROBERT A. KATZMANN, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Balvir Singh, a native of Punjab, India, petitions for review of the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen his asylum application and withholding of removal claim. It was the second such motion Singh filed.

In a per curiam order, the BIA denied the motion as numerically barred pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), which allows for only one motion to reopen. In a footnote, the BIA added that even if the motion were interpreted as a motion to reconsider, it nevertheless would be denied because Singh “failed to specify any error in our previous decision.” *In re: Balvir Singh,*BIA, [ A XX XXX XXX ], order dated Dec. 20, 2002, at 1 n. 1.; *see also,*8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(b).

We review the BIA’s denial of a motion to reopen and a motion to reconsider for abuse of discretion. *Jie Chen v. Gonzales,*436 F.3d 76, 77 (2d Cir.2006). In particular, “[wjhere the BIA, based on relevant regulations, determines that the claims asserted in an ambiguous motion are properly construed as either a ‘motion to reopen’ or a ‘motion to reconsider,’ the BIA’s conclusion would be reviewed for abuse of discretion.” *Id.*at 78 n. 5. “An abuse of discretion may be found in those circumstances where the Board’s decision provides no rational explanation, inexplicably departs from established policies, is devoid of any reasoning, or contains only summary or conclusory statements; that is to say, where the Board has acted in an arbitrary or capricious manner.” *Kaur v. BIA,*413 F.3d 232, 233-34 (2d Cir.2005) (citation omitted).

Our review is limited to the motion filed on October 21, 2002. The petitioner did not timely appeal the BIA’s underlying decision on the merits of his asylum application or withholding of removal claim, nor did he timely appeal the BIA’s denial of the first motion to reopen. ‘We are therefore ‘precluded from passing on the merits of the underlying exclusion proceedings,’ and must confine our review to the denial of petitioner’s motion to reopen these proceedings.” *Kaur,*413 F.3d at233 (citing *944
      *Ke Zhen Zhao v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*265 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir.2001)).

We need not determine whether Singh’s motion was a motion to reopen or a motion to reconsider because the BIA properly analyzed the motion under both alternatives. In either case, the BIA adequately explained why the motion failed, and it included citations to the relevant and controlling regulations. Therefore, the BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. *See Chen,*436 F.3d at 78.

For the foregoing reasons, Singh’s petition is hereby DENIED.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3127 

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to require regular updating 

of the supplemental foods provided under the special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 16, 2010 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry 

A BILL 

To amend the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 to require regular 

updating of the supplemental foods provided under the 

special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD UPDATES. 

4 Section 17(f)(11) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 

5 (42 U.S.C. 1786(f)(11)) is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following: 

7 ‘‘(E) SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD UPDATES.— 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3127 IS

1 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary 

2 shall enter into an arrangement with the 

3 National Academy of Sciences under 

4 which, not less than every 10 years, the In5 stitute of Medicine of the Academy shall 

6 conduct a study that— 

7 ‘‘(I) reviews the most recent nu8 trition science; and 

9 ‘‘(II) makes recommendations for 

10 changes in the supplemental foods 

11 available under the program. 

12 ‘‘(ii) UPDATES.—The Secretary shall 

13 amend the supplemental foods available 

14 under the program to reflect the studies 

15 conducted under clause (i).’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
97-92.

#### State ex rel. Jackson v. Wingard.

In Habeas Corpus. *Sua sponte,*cause dismissed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur.
Glen Nenema 

Chairman 

Kalispel Tribe of Indians 

Box 39 

Usk, Washington 99 180 

Re: Approval of Revisions to the Kalispel Tribe Gaming Ordinance 

Dear Chairman Nenema: 

I am writing in response to your request for the National Indian Gaming Commission 

(NIGC) to review and approve the Revised Chapter 1 1 of the Kalispel Tribe Law and 

Order Code, entitled "Kalispel Tribe Gaming Ordinance", which was adopted by 

Resolution No. 2002-37 on May 7,2002. The amendment, along with your letter; was 

received by the NIGC on August 16,2002. This letter constitutes approval of your 

submission under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). 

Thank you for submitting the revision of Chapter 11 of the Kalispel Tribe Gaming 

Ordinance for review and approval. The NIGC staff and I look forward to working with 

you and the Tribe on future gaming issues. 

Vice Chairman 

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1441 L St. NW. Suite 9100. Washington. DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 wwW.NlGC.GOV 

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento. CA; Phoenix. AZ; St. Paul. MN;Tulsa. OK 
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-x 

RESOLUTION 

WHEREAS, the Kalispel Business Committee is the duly constituted governing body 

by the authority of the Constitution and By-Laws of the Kalispel Tribe; 

and 

WHEREAS, under the Constitution and By-Laws of the Tribe, the Kalispel Business 

Committee is charged with the duty of protecting the health, security and 

general welfare of the Kalispel Tribe and all reservation residents; and 

WHEREAS, the Kalispel Business Committee approved Chapter 11 of the Kalispel 

Law and Order Code, titled "Kalispel Tribe Gaming Ordinance"; and 

WHEREAS, Chapter 11, Section 14 covers raffles. Section 14.06(D) and (E) limit the 

price of raffle tickets to $1 .OO each; and 

WHEREAS, it is not in the best interest of the Kalispel Tribe to limit the cost of raffle 

tickets to $1 .OO each; 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Chapter 1 1, Sections 

14.06(D) and (E) shall be deleted fiom Chapter 11 of the Kalispel Law 

and Order Code. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing RESOLUTION was adopted by the Kalispel Tribal Council at a 

meeting held on the 7 day of m%y ,2002, at the Tribal Office on 

the Kalispel Reservation with the requ~red quorum present by a vote of -/ FOR 

and 1 AGAINST. 

GLEN NENEMA, &AIRMAN 

- 

CURT HOLMES, SECRETARY 

KALISPEL BUSINESS COMMITTEE KALISPEL BUSINESS COMMITTEE 

(TERM EXPIRES JUNE 2002) (TERM EXPIRES JUNE 2003) 

BOX 39 USK, WA 99180 PHONE (509) 445-1 147 FAX (509) 445-1705
#### Diane Villano et al., Respondents, v St. Charles Rehabilitation Hospital et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[823 NYS2d 489]

*993In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for medical malpractice and wrongful death, etc., the defendant St. Charles Rehabilitation Hospital, the defendants North Shore University Hospital, Michael Hall, Bruce Hirsch, and Bruce Farber, and the defendant Hariton H. Kousourou separately appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), dated September 15, 2005, as denied their respective motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to prosecute.

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

CPLR 3216 is “extremely forgiving” *(Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co.,*89 NY2d 499, 503 [1997]) in that it “never requires, but merely authorizes, the Supreme Court to dismiss a plaintiffs action based on the plaintiffs unreasonable neglect to proceed” *(Davis v Goodsell,*6 AD3d 382, 383 [2004]; see CPLR 3216 [a], [e]; *Di Simone v Good Samaritan Hosp.,*100 NY2d 632, 633 [2003]; *Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., supra at*504-505; *Tolmasova v Umarova,*22 AD3d 570 [2005]). While the statute prohibits the Supreme Court from dismissing an action based on neglect to proceed whenever the plaintiff shows a justifiable excuse for the delay in the prosecution of the action and a meritorious cause of action *(see*CPLR 3216 [e]; *Di Simone v Good Samaritan Hosp., supra),*such a dual showing is not strictly necessary to avoid dismissal of the action *(see Baczkowski v Collins Constr. Co., supra*at 503-505; *Davis v Goodsell, supra*at 383-384).

Here, the appellants began serving their 90-day notices less than two months after the parties entered into a preliminary conference order on September 23, 2004, wherein an extensive discovery schedule was set forth, and before the commencement of the parties’ depositions which were to begin with the plaintiffs’ depositions on March 9, 2005, and continuing with the defendants’ depositions until June 22, 2005. Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motions pursuant to CPLR 3216 to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them for failure to *994prosecute. Florio, J.E, Crane, Luciano, Spolzino and Covello, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

	         CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

   Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 63 1350, the President/Chief Executive Officer
of Art's-Way Manufacturing Co., Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that
this Form 10-K and the financial statements thereto fully comply with the
requirements of Sections 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-K and the
financial statements thereto fairly present, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


By: /s/ John C. Breitung

Name:   John C. Breitung
President and Chief Executive Officer

Date   2/23/04
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             787
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   787
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     787
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,310
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,497)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       787
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,687
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,687)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,687)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,687)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Judy Mills, Respondent, v Richard Mills, Appellant.

[977 NYS2d 664]

Motion for reargument or leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present — Scudder, PJ, Smith, Fahey, Sconiers and Valentino, JJ.