alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C.  20549

FORM 10-QSB/A
QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(D)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For Quarterly Period Ended            Commission File Number
           September 30, 1996                          33-78602

                         PEOPLES BANCORPORATION, INC.
      (exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)

             South Carolina                 57-09581843         
      (State of other jurisdiction of         (I.R.S Employer 
       incorporation or organization)        Identification No.)

           1800 East Main Street, Easley, South Carolina   29640
            (Address of principal executive offices)     (Zip Code)

    Not Applicable        
     (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed 
     since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

                     Yes  __X__         No  _____

State the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of
common equity, as of the latest practicable date:

   Common Stock $3.33 Par Value                   799,930
               Class                  Outstanding as of November 8, 1996    

Transitional Small Business Disclosure Format:

                      Yes  _____        No  __X__ 



SIGNATURES


      Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned thereunto duly authorized.



                                          PEOPLES BANCORPORATION, INC.




Dated:   November 14, 1996             By:__/s/__Robert E. Dye_______________   
                                          Robert E. Dye
                                          President and Chairman of the Board



Dated:   November 14, 1996             By:__/s/__R. Riggie Ridgeway__________  
                                          R. Riggie Ridgeway
                                          Secretary and Treasurer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer)
| Dated: March 7, 2011 |   | /s/ Diana P. Herrmann                                         |   |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                      |   | President and TrusteeChurchill Tax-Free Trust                 |   |
|                      |   |                                                          |   |
|                      |   |                                                          |   |
| Dated: March 7, 2011 |   | /s/ Joseph P. DiMaggio                                        |   |
|                      |   | Chief Financial Officer and TreasurerChurchill Tax-Free Trust |   |
Exhibit 32.1



Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. '
1350

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Denmark Bancshares, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|/s/ Darrell R. Lemmens              
|------------------------------------
|Darrell R. Lemmens,                 
|Principal Executive Officer,        
|Chairman of the Board, and President



|/s/ Dennis J. Heim           
|-----------------------------
|Dennis J. Heim               
|Vice President and Treasurer,
|Principal Financial and      
|Accounting Officer           
|                             
|Date:  July 22, 2004
OMB APPROVAL
OMB Number: 3235-0070
Expires: September 30, 2005
Estimated average burden
[LETTERHEAD OF BINGHAM McCUTCHEN LLP]

December 30, 2013

American Funds Target Date Retirement Series
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

       REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS ON SUPPLEMENTAL SCHEDULE

To the stockholders of Exult, Inc.:

        We have audited in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted
in the United States, the consolidated financial statements included in Exult,
Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") Form 10-K and have issued our report
thereon dated February 6, 2001. Our audits were made for the purpose of forming
an opinion on those statements taken as a whole. The supplemental Schedule II as
shown in Exhibit 99.2 is the responsibility of the Company's management and is
presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and Exchange
Commission's rules and is not part of the basic consolidated financial
statements. This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied
in the audits of the basic consolidated financial statements and, in our
opinion, fairly states in all material respects the financial data required to
be set forth therein in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements
taken as a whole.


/s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Orange County, California
February 6, 2001
----

----

----

----

----

----

----

|   | By: | Stratus Block 21 Investments, L.P., a Texas limited partnership, Manager |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By: | Stratus Block 21 Investments GP, L.L.C., a Texas limited liability company, its General Partner |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By: | CJUF II Block 21 Member, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Member |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | By: | Canyon-Johnson Realty Advisors II LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, General Partner |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTIONS 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTS OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Jeantex Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Henry Fahman, Interim Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|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: April 15, 2009/s/ Henry FahmanHenry FahmanInterim Chief Executive/Financial Officer

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**In connection with the Annual Report of The Washington Post Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Kfor the fiscal year ended January 1, 2006 (the “Report”), I, John B. Morse, Jr., VicePresident–Finance (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: (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 aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.        Date:  March 3, 2006 /s/ John B. Morse, Jr.   John B. Morse, Jr.,   Vice President–Finance
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 746 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 746

 To prohibit the Federal Government from entering into contracts with 
  companies that do not include certifications for certain financial 
      reports required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 2003

   Mr. Strickland (for himself, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Stupak, Mr. 
  Lipinski, and Mr. Deutsch) introduced the following bill; which was 
referred to the Committee on Government Reform, and in addition to the 
   Committee on Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the Federal Government from entering into contracts with 
  companies that do not include certifications for certain financial 
      reports required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

     This Act may be cited as the ``Responsibility in Federal Contracts 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON CONTRACTING WITH COMPANIES WITHOUT FINANCIAL 
              REPORT CERTIFICATIONS.

    (a) Prohibition on Contracting With Companies Failing to Certify 
Their Financial Reports.--The Federal Government may not enter into, or 
approve any subcontract under, a contract with any company filing 
periodic reports under section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m, 78o(d)) if, before the date on 
which the contract is expected to be awarded, the certification 
required under section 302(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 
U.S.C. 7241) has not been made for the most recent periodic report due 
before such date.
    (b) Period of Prohibition.--A prohibition under subsection (a) 
shall remain in effect with respect to a company for the one-year 
period beginning on the date that the most recent periodic report was 
due.
    (c) Waiver.--The President may waive the prohibition in subsection 
(a) if he determines that such waiver is in the national security 
interest of the United States.
    (d) List of Companies Failing to Certify.--The Securities and 
Exchange Commission shall make available to the public on a quarterly 
basis a list of companies that have failed to make the certification 
required under section 302(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (15 
U.S.C. 7241).
    (e) Effective Date.--This section shall apply to contracts entered 
into after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 21

REGISTRANTS SUBSIDIARIES

The following table sets forth, at February 28, 2007, the Registrants
significant operating subsidiaries and other associated companies and their respective incorporation jurisdictions. The Registrant owns 100% of the voting securities of each of the subsidiaries listed below. There are no subsidiaries not listed in
the table, which would, in the aggregate, be considered significant.



|                                    |  |                        |  | 
|----------------------------------- |  | ---------------------- |  | 
|Active Subsidiaries                 |  | State of Incorporation |  | 
|                                    |  |                       
|Distribution:                       |  |                        |  | 
|Air Systems Distributors LLC        |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Atlantic Service & Supply LLC       |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Baker Distributing Company LLC      |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Comfort Supply, Inc.                |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Comfort Products Distributing LLC   |  | Delaware               |  | 
|East Coast Metal Distributors LLC   |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Gemaire Distributors LLC            |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Heat Incorporated LLC               |  | New Hampshire          |  | 
|Heating & Cooling Supply LLC        |  | California             |  | 
|Homans Associates LLC               |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Three States Supply Company LLC     |  | Tennessee              |  | 
|Tradewinds Distributing Company LLC |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Watsco Holdings, Inc.               |  | Delaware               |  | 
|                                    |  |                       
|Other:                              |  |                        |  | 
|Dunhill Staffing Systems, Inc.      |  | Delaware               |  | 
|Dunhill Temporary Systems, Inc.     |  | New York               |  |
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 141 (Friday, July 24, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36725-36726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17732]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Center for 
Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel, June 29, 2009, 8:30 a.m. to 
June 30, 2009, 6 p.m., The River Inn, 924 25th Street, NW., Washington, 
DC 20037 which was

[[Page 36726]]

published in the Federal Register on June 11, 2009, 74 FR 27806-27808.
    The meeting will be held August 6, 2009 to August 7, 2009. The 
meeting time and location remain the same. The meeting is closed to the 
public.

    Dated: July 20, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-17732 Filed 7-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 955

To amend the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, to reinstate the 

requirement that a farm, in order to be certified as an organic farm 

with respect to livestock produced on the farm, feed the livestock with 

organically produced feed. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2003

Mr. FARR (for himself, Mr. KIND, Mr. SHERWOOD, Ms. WOOLSEY, Ms. 

ESHOO, Mr. HONDA, Mr. OLVER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. PRICE of North 

Carolina, Ms. LEE, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mrs. 

CAPPS, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. UDALL of 

Colorado, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. DELAHUNT, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. NETHERCUTT, Mr. 

KUCINICH, Mr. HINCHEY, and Mr. BOEHLERT) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL

To amend the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and 

Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, to reinstate the requirement that a 

farm, in order to be certified as an organic farm with 

respect to livestock produced on the farm, feed the livestock with organically produced feed.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 955 IH 

1 SECTION 1. USE OF ORGANICALLY PRODUCED FEED FOR 

2 CERTIFICATION AS ORGANIC FARM. 

3 Section 771 of the Agriculture, Rural Development, 

4 Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Ap5 propriations Act, 2003 (division A of the Consolidated Ap6 propriations Resolution, 2003; Public Law 108–7), is re7 pealed.

Æ
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-30228 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCUS THEODORE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-284-L

- - - - - - - - - - October 10, 1996 Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Marcus Theodore contends that the district court erred in denying him an additional one-level reduction for the acceptance of responsibility. Section 3E1.1(b) of the sentencing guidelines established a three-part test to determine entitlement to the additional one-level decrease for acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Mills , 9 F.3d 1132, 1136 (5th Cir. 1993). The sentencing court is directed to grant the additional one-levelNo. 96-30228 - 2 - decrease in the defendant's offense level if (1) the defendant qualifies for the two-level decrease under § 3E1.1(a) for acceptance of responsibility; (2) the defendant's offense level is 16 or higher before the two-level reduction under § 3E1.1(a); and (3) the defendant timely "`assisted authorities'" by taking "one--but not necessarily both--of two `steps': either (a) `timely' furnishing information to the prosecution about the defendant's own involvement in the offense (subsection (b)(1)); or (b) `timely' notifying the authorities that the defendant will enter a guilty plea (subsection (b)(2))." United States v. Tello , 9 F.3d 1119, 1124-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Affording the district court the great deference that is required, we find that the denial of the additional reduction for acceptance of responsibility was not clearly erroneous because of the Government’s representations, the close proximity of the plea to the trial date, and the extensive factual basis presented for the plea. United States v. Bermea , 30 F.3d 1539, 1577 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1113, 1825 (1995); see § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5) ("the determination of the sentencing judge is entitled to great deference").
AFFIRMED.
Table 4. Employment status by marital status and sex, 2008 annual averages

(Numbers in thousands)

 Civilian labor force 

 Employed Unemployed 

 Total 

Percent 

of 

population 

 Total 

 Percent 

of labor 

force 

Total

Total, 16 years and over...... 233,788 154,287 66.0 145,362 62.2 8,924 5.8 79,501

 Married, spouse present...... 122,349 84,644 69.2 81,729 66.8 2,915 3.4 37,705

 Unmarried, total............... 111,439 69,643 62.5 63,634 57.1 6,010 8.6 41,796

 Never married............... 66,254 44,874 67.7 40,452 61.1 4,422 9.9 21,381

 Other marital status......... 45,185 24,769 54.8 23,182 51.3 1,587 6.4 20,415

 Divorced..................... 22,864 16,126 70.5 15,182 66.4 944 5.9 6,738

 Separated..................... 8,198 5,772 70.4 5,296 64.6 475 8.2 2,427

 Widowed...................... 14,122 2,872 20.3 2,704 19.1 168 5.9 11,251

Women

Total, 16 years and over...... 120,675 71,767 59.5 67,876 56.2 3,891 5.4 48,908

 Married, spouse present...... 60,554 37,194 61.4 35,869 59.2 1,325 3.6 23,360

 Unmarried, total................ 60,121 34,573 57.5 32,007 53.2 2,566 7.4 25,548

 Never married.................. 30,980 20,231 65.3 18,513 59.8 1,717 8.5 10,749

 Other marital status......... 29,141 14,342 49.2 13,494 46.3 849 5.9 14,799

 Divorced..................... 13,379 9,222 68.9 8,743 65.4 479 5.2 4,157

 Separated..................... 4,520 2,947 65.2 2,702 59.8 246 8.3 1,572

 Widowed..................... 11,242 2,173 19.3 2,048 18.2 125 5.7 9,069

Men

Total, 16 years and over...... 113,113 82,520 73.0 77,486 68.5 5,033 6.1 30,593

 Married, spouse present...... 61,794 47,450 76.8 45,860 74.2 1,590 3.4 14,345

 Unmarried, total............... 51,318 35,070 68.3 31,627 61.6 3,443 9.8 16,248

 Never married............... 35,274 24,643 69.9 21,938 62.2 2,705 11.0 10,631

 Other marital status......... 16,044 10,427 65.0 9,688 60.4 739 7.1 5,617

 Divorced..................... 9,486 6,905 72.8 6,439 67.9 465 6.7 2,581

 Separated................... 3,678 2,824 76.8 2,594 70.5 230 8.1 854

 Widowed..................... 2,880 698 24.3 655 22.7 43 6.2 2,181

 SOURCE: Current Population Survey, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Marital status and sex

 Civilian 

noninstitutional 

population 

 Not in 

labor 

force Total 

Percent 

of 

population 

12
#### Leo Schlesinger, as Receiver of the Federal Bank of New York, Respondent, *v.*Jeannette Goldberg, Harry Neuman, Weisbart & Company, Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Term,

April, 1905.)

Bank — Insolvent — Set-off in action by receiver.

In an action by a receiver of an insolvent bank to recover upon a discounted note the defendants may not offset a claim assigned to them after the bank suspended payment.

Appeal by the defendants from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of New York, seventh district, borough of Manhattan.

Louis B. Brodsky, for appellants.

Kneeland, La Fetra & Glaze, for respondent.

Leventritt, J.

This appeal presents simply the familiar question whether a debtor of an insolvent bank can offset a claim acquired by assignment after the suspension of the bank.

The action was brought by the receiver of the Federal Bank on a discounted note in the sum of $400 made by certain of the defendants and indorsed by the others. The-note matured after the appointment of the receiver. The sum of $29.38 had been paid on the note, and the plaintiff conceded a further credit of $116.81, being the amount on deposit with the bank by the makers at the time of the suspension. Suit was, therefore, brought for the sum. of $253.81. The answer of the indorsers claims an offset in *150the sum of $328.80, arising by assignment to them prior to the commencement of the action, but after the suspension of the bank of the balances to the credit of two of its depositors. The offset was disallowed and judgment given in favor of the plaintiff for the amount claimed.

The judgment was right. A contrary conclusion would have resulted in an unlawful preference. The right to a set-off must exist at the time of the suspension or insolvency. The cases are clear on this point. Van Dyck v. McQuade, 85 N. Y. 616; Fera v. Wickham, 135 id. 223. While the receiver, therefore, properly allowed the deposit to the credit of the makers of the note as a cross-demand existing at the time of the insolvency, the subsequent assignment of the other balances was futile as against the equities that had! attached in favor of the general creditors of the bank..

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Scott and Greenbaum, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.