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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                             107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                         29
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,707
<PP&E>                                           2,931
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0<F1>
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,867
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,042
<BONDS>                                          1,519
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         54
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,054
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,867
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,248
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,126
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  63
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    144
<INCOME-TAX>                                        56
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 88
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        88
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>NOT SEPARATELY IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OR
ACCOMPANYING NOTES THERETO.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Surface Transportation Board

          - [STB Finance Docket No. 34836]

# AGENCY:

Surface Transportation Board.

# ACTION:

Notice of exemption.

# SUMMARY:

The Board grants an exemption, under 49 U.S.C. 10502, from the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 for Arizona Eastern Railway, Inc. (AZER) to construct a 12.1-mile rail line in Graham County, AZ, beginning at milepost 1133.5 at Safford, AZ, where it would connect with AZER's existing line and proceed 12.1 miles across the Gila River to the Safford Regional Airport and the Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. Dos Pobres Mine in Safford.

# DATES:

The exemption will be effective on July 15, 2009. Petitions to reopen must be filed by July 6, 2009.

# ADDRESSES:

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34836, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of all pleadings must be served on petitioner's representative: John D. Heffner, John D. Heffner, PLLC, 1920 N Street, NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20036.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Melissa Ziembicki, (202) 245-0386. Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Additional information is contained in the Board's decision. Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at                     *http://www.stb.dot.gov*.                

Decided: June 12, 2009.

By the Board, Acting Chairman Mulvey and Vice Chairman Nottingham.

Kulunie L. Cannon,

Clearance Clerk.

[FR Doc. E9-14317 Filed 6-17-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-102723, 333-59601,
33-57658, 333-56572, 333-24705, 333-102432 and 33-49801, and 33-59545, 333-45051, 333-46980,
333-89046 and 333-81292, respectively) of Constellation Energy Group, Inc. and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company of our report dated January 28, 2004 relating to
the financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

|GRAPHIC                    |  | 
|-------------------------- |  | 
|PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP |  | 

Atlanta,
Georgia
March 9, 2004

137

---

QuickLinks
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 348 

To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to provide that 

funds received as universal service contributions and the universal service 

support programs established pursuant to that section are not subject 

to certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known 

as the Antideficiency Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 29, 2009 

Mr. ROCKEFELLER (for himself and Ms. SNOWE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 

to provide that funds received as universal service contributions and the universal service support programs 

established pursuant to that section are not subject to 

certain provisions of title 31, United States Code, commonly known as the Antideficiency Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. FINDING. 

4 Congress finds that in order to ensure the efficient 

5 and effective implementation of the Universal Service 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•S 348 IS

1 Fund on a long-term basis, the Universal Service Fund 

2 needs to be exempt from the Antideficiency Act. 

3 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1934. 

4 Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 

5 U.S.C. 254) is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘(m) APPLICATION OF ANTIDEFICIENCY ACT.—Sec8 tion 1341 and subchapter II of chapter 15 of title 31, 

9 United States Code, do not apply— 

10 ‘‘(1) to any amount collected or received as 

11 Federal universal service contributions required by 

12 this section, including any interest earned on such 

13 contributions; nor 

14 ‘‘(2) to the expenditure or obligation of 

15 amounts attributable to such contributions for uni16 versal service support programs established pursuant 

17 to this section.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
**Exhibit No. 31.1**

**SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Morton H. Kinzler, certify that:

1.               I have reviewed this annualreport on Form 10-KSB of Barnwell Industries, Inc.;

2.               Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.               Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4.               The small business issuer’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

a)              Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;

b)             Evaluated the effectivenessof the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

c)              Disclosed in this report anychange in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.               Thesmall business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to thesmall business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small businessissuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)              All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)             Any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  | December 19, 2005       |   | /s/ Morton H. Kinzler |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|-----------------------|
|   | Morton H. Kinzler       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-4265

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ANTHONY LAMB, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (4:02-cr-00058-RGD) Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 19, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael S. Nachmanoff, Acting Federal Public Defender, Walter B. Dalton, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant. Scott Walker Putney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Lamb appeals his twenty-month term of imprisonment imposed after the district court revoked his supervised release. Lamb’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 739 (1967), raising the argument that the sentence was not reasonable, but stating that he finds no meritorious grounds for appeal. The Government did not file an answering brief, and although advised of his right to do so, Lamb did not file a pro se supplemental brief. In accordance with Anders , we have reviewed the record in this case and have found no meritorious issues for appeal. Pursuant to United States v. Crudup , ___ F.3d ___, ___, 2006 WL 2243586, at *3 (4th Cir. Aug. 7, 2006), revocation sentences are reviewed to determine whether they are “plainly unreasonable” with regard to the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2000) factors applicable to these sentences. We find that Lamb’s sentence is not plainly unreasonable because the district court sentenced Lamb within the statutory maximum and sufficiently stated a proper basis for its conclusion that Lamb should be sentenced to a lengthier sentence than one within the advisory range. We therefore affirm Lamb’s conviction and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Lamb, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Lamb requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be- 3 - frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Lamb. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Joseph A. BRUST, Joseph W. Burg and Leonard Schwartz, Trustees of the Estate of Moore & Hamm, Inc., Bankrupt, Plaintiffs, v. INDUSTRIAL BANK OF COMMERCE, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

May 4, 1955.

*91Finke, Jacobs & Hirseh and Herman Somners, New York City, for plaintiffs.

John J. Dwyer, New York City, for defendant.

WEINFELD, District Judge.

I am not disposed to penalize the defendant for the neglect of its counsel in failing promptly to respond to the requests for admission made pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which is attributed to lack of familiarity with the Federal Rules, particularly so since I am not at all persuaded that plaintiffs will be prejudiced if they are required to accept the belatedly proferred responses. Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to decide whether the neglect here constitutes “excusable neglect” within the meaning of Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The motion is granted and Exhibit B attached to the moving affidavit is deemed the response of the defendant to the requests for admissions with leave, however, to the plaintiff to make an application with respect thereto on the ground that the responses are not specific or do not meet the requests. The filing of the responses shall not serve as the basis for any application on the part of the defendant to postpone the trial, but plaintiffs, if they feel that the situation so requires, may request an adjournment by reason of the late service.

Settle order on one day’s notice.
CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     The  undersigned  hereby  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
undersigned's  best knowledge and belief,  the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for
the Geodyne Energy Income  Limited  Partnership  II-B  ("Issuer") for the period
ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"):

      (a)   fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
      (b)   the  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Issuer.

      Dated this 13th day of August, 2004.

                                    GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED
                                    PARTNERSHIP II-B
                                    ("Issuer")

                                    //s// Dennis R. Neill
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Dennis R. Neill
                                    President (Chief Executive Officer)

                                    //s// Craig D. Loseke
                                    -----------------------------------
                                    Craig D. Loseke
                                    Chief Accounting Officer
                                    (Chief Financial Officer)


      A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906 has
been  furnished to Geodyne  Energy Income  Limited Partnership  II-B and will be
retained by Geodyne Energy Income Limited  Partnership II-B and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2





                      CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
                  OFFICER REGARDING PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING
                              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS



         I, Paul E. Martin, the Principal Financial Officer of Enstar
Income/Growth Program Six-A, L.P. (the "Partnership") in compliance with 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, hereby certify that, the Partnership's Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003 (the "Report") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission:

    o     fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

    o     the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Company.



                                                     /s/  Paul E. Martin
                                                     -------------------
                                                     Paul E. Martin
                                                     Chief Financial Officer
                                                     November 14, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS INC. FOR THE NINE
MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           1,076
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,222
<ALLOWANCES>                                       997
<INVENTORY>                                      2,418
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 7,026
<PP&E>                                           8,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,051
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            55
<OTHER-SE>                                       8,430
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,236
<SALES>                                         14,264
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                14,264
<CGS>                                            7,773
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    816
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                816
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  2,441
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,257
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .57
        

</TABLE>
Consent of Independent Accountants


   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
   statements of Badger Paper Mills, Inc. and Subsidiary on Form S-8 (File
   Nos. 333-01671 and 333-1673) of our reports dated February 5, 1996, on our
   audits of the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
   schedule of Badger Paper Mills, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31,
   1995 and 1994, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form
   10-K.


                                                  COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


   Milwaukee, Wisconsin
   March 27, 1996
* 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 October 24, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-51317 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERTO V. BALTAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:01-CR-238-2

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Roberto V. Baltazar appeals from the judgment revoking his supervised release. This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. Mosley v. Cozby , 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). Article III, § 2, of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. See Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration orNo. 04-51317 -2- parole -- some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction -- must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” Id. Baltazar has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Baltazar’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is dismissed as moot.
APPEAL DISMISSED.