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

----

| 1.   | The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                            | Applied Minerals, Inc. |
|---------------------------------|------------------------|
|                            |                   |   |
| Date:  March 29, 2010 | By:                    | /s/ CHRISTOPHER T. CARNEY |
|                            |                   | Christopher T. Carney |
|                            |                   | Interim Chief Financial Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CORPORATIONS FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,659
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     5,481,826
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  (43,659)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (29,800)
<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>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Niagara Frontier Transit Metro System, Inc., Respondent, v Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1342 et al., Appellants.

Submitted April 15, 2013;

decided May 7, 2013

*931Motion by Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. for leave to appear amicus curiae on the motion for leave to appeal herein granted and the brief is accepted as filed.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 129204 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 129204 

 COA: 259128 

Saginaw CC: 92-006663-FC 

CHARLES EDWARD MYLES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 24, 2005 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

d1121 

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. 

November 29, 2005 

Clerk
96-2799.

#### State v. Cummings.

Cuyahoga App. No. 69966. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a *1421memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due February 28, 1997, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte,*effective March 5,1997.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk November 19, 2009

1112 

# Order

November 19, 2009

139342-3

LOIS SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, and

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Intervening Plaintiff,

v SC: 139342-3 COA: 290990, 291012 WCAC: 07-000258 NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC., and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-Appellees.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the June 10, 2009 orders 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.

K ELLY , C.J., and C AVANAGH , J., would grant leave to appeal.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Statement of Financial Condition at September 30, 1997 (Unaudited) and the
Statement of Income for the nine months ended September 30, 1997 (Unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             472
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,500
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,972
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,376
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,241,015
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,972
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   807
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (807)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

 

ITRONICS INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Itronics Inc. (the Company") on Form10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on May 14, 2004 (the "Report") each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto his knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities 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: May 14, 2004                    /S/ JOHN W. WHITNEY
                                      John W. Whitney

                                      Chief Executive Officer

                                      Chief Financial Officer

25
Exhibit 31(d)

BALTIMORE GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY        CERTIFICATION

I,
John R. Collins, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Baltimore Gas and Electric Company;

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;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) for
the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



Date:
February 27, 2008

|/s/JOHN R. COLLINS                                |  | 
|------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Appellate Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.

# DATES:

November 5-6, 2009.

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

# ADDRESSES:

The Fairmount Olympic Hotel, 411 University Street, Seattle, Washington 98101.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

Dated: June 11, 2009.

John K. Rabiej, 

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. E9-14133 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998             DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998             MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,367,486                  18,830
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,478,283               1,820,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                     85,249                   7,392
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,003,144               1,878,430
<PP&E>                                         574,939<F1>             284,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,367,845               3,201,012
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,880,648               1,735,453
<BONDS>                                      8,045,181<F2>           1,093,939         
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          211,863<F3>                   0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       376,500                 376,500
<OTHER-SE>                                     854,153                 (7,978)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                15,367,845               3,201,012
<SALES>                                      1,051,247                 784,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                          484,616                 338,383
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,045,787                 715,200
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              65,869                  10,210
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,266                  59,264
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (60,409)                  59,264
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.02)                     .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.02)                     .15
<FN>
<F1>Net of Depreciation
<F2>Long-Term Debt
<F3>Redeemable Warrants
</FN>
        




</TABLE>
#### Kelly A. Herr, Appellant, v James E. Herr, Respondent.

Submitted August 27, 2012;

decided November 20, 2012

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                              5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1000
       
<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>               JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                             81212
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                       3176
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                         9680
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   95137
<PP&E>                            197591
<DEPRECIATION>                     79944
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    212784
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               9787
<BONDS>                               43
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            0
<COMMON>                               3
<OTHER-SE>                        157182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      212784
<SALES>                            48307
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   48868
<CGS>                              55606
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      55606
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    1134
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   970
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (8842)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (870)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (7972)
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                       (7972)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.31)
        
 

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Shawn Green, Appellant, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

Submitted February 4, 2013;

decided April 25, 2013

Motion for reargument of motion for leave to appeal denied *[see*20 NY3d 855 (2013)].

Judge Rivera taking no part.
#### BINGER et al. v. UNGER et al.

District Court, S. D. New York.

June 3, 1946.

*45Harry Price, of New York City, for plaintiff.

Samuel Stephen Baker, of New York City, for defendants.

RIFKIND, District Judge.

Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides:

> “A pleading which sets forth a clá'im for relief, * * * shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and.the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (3) a de-.rnand for judgment for the relief to which he deems himself entitled. Relief in the alternative or of several (Efferent types may be demanded”.

Rule 8(e) (1) provides:

> “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.”

To illustrate what is meant by “a-short and plain statement of the claim” there is .annexed to the Rules and - Appendix of Forms.

The complaint, challenged by the motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction arid for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, violates both the letter and spirit of the rules. It is verbose, iconfusing; equivocal,, replete with evidentiary matter and peppered with “and/ors.” It unnecessarily complicates the task of the judge attempting to ascertain whether the court has ;jurisdiction and whether,the complaint alleges a sufficient claim.

Were this a “home drawn” complaint, Dioguardi v. Durning, 2 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 774, it might be obligatory upon the court to make the effort necessary to reárame the allegations so that the issues of jurisdiction and the quality of the claim to support relief might be isolated and inspected. This complaint, however, is lawyer drawn; and no valid reason appears why that effort should not be made by the pleader.

If the fair construction of the first cause of action of the complaint is that plaintiffs assert equitable ownership of a patent, admitting legal title to reside in others, that the gravamen of the action is to determine title to the patent, and that its incidental objects are to restrain infringement, it is not one arising under the patent laws, 35 U.S.C.A. § 1 et seq.; and if so, the court is without jurisdiction. Jud.Code, § 24(7), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(7). U. S. Fire Protection Co. v. Monocel, Inc., D.C.N.J.1943, 53 F.Supp. 989, 990; Dill Mfg. Co. v. Goff, 6 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 676, 678, 679, certiorari denied 317 U.S. 672, 63 S.Ct. 77, 87 L.Ed. 540; Laning v. National Ribbon & Carbon Paper Mfg. Co., 7 Cir., 1942, 125 F.2d 565, 566-568.

Such a construction of the first cause of action is plausible.

The second cause of action defies my understanding.

The complaint is dismissed with leave to amend.
----

----

| 1.   | The Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2.   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |
|----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           | Atlas Mining Company |
|--------------------------------|----------------------|
|                           |                 |   |
| Date:  July 15, 2009 | By:                  | /s/ ANDRE ZEITOUN |
|                           |                 | Andre Zeitoun |
|                           |                 | Chief Executive Officer |

----