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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000108633
<NAME>                        Wulf International, LTD.
<MULTIPLIER>                                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                                  US DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                      1
<CASH>                                                           6,592
<SECURITIES>                                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                 6,592
<PP&E>                                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                   6,592
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                0
<BONDS>                                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                0
<PREFERRED>                                                  1,107,500
<COMMON>                                                     2,118,808
<OTHER-SE>                                                  (3,219,716)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                     6,592
<SALES>                                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                     0
<CGS>                                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                  646,297
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               (646,297)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           (646,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                      0
<CHANGES>                                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  (646,247)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    (.046)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    (.035)



</TABLE>
* 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.

1 Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2); United States v. Bell , 966 F.2d 914 (5th Cir. 1992).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-10271 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

PATRICK ERWIN GARNER, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas

(7:95-CR-4-1-X)

January 15, 1998

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Patrick Erwin Garner entered a conditional guilty plea 1 preserving an appeal2 United States v. Walker , 960 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1992).

2 of the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized by state officers during an

inventory search of his vehicle. Although not decided below, Garner contends that

the sea rch was unconstitutional under Texas law; he does not contend that the

searc h was unconstitutional under federal constitutional standards, candidly

recognizing that controlling federal authority is to the contrary.

Garner urges us to adopt a rule that a federal conviction cannot rest on

evidence seized during a search conducted b y state officers which is found to be

unconstitutional under state law. We decline to do so. In determining the

admissibility of evidence in a federal court, that state law may have been violated

in the obtaining of the evidence is not dispositive. 2 The constitutional validity of

the search must be resolved by application of controlling federal standards.

The ruling of the district court in denying the motion to suppress and its

acceptance of the guilty plea and sentence are AFFIRMED.
**SEC. File Nos.	**333-176635

	811-22605

** **

** **

 

**UNITED STATES**

**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

	Washington, D.C. 20549
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR QUARTER  ENDED MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS  QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                                  444,248
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                         5,370,692
<ALLOWANCES>                                            127,319
<INVENTORY>                                           8,912,128
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     14,753,419
<PP&E>                                               12,727,213
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,863,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       31,680,914
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                14,298,922
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                 15,759
<OTHER-SE>                                            9,914,730
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         31,680,914
<SALES>                                               7,320,955
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              0
<CGS>                                                 5,305,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      1,752,166
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      498,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (234,466)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (234,466)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
        


</TABLE>
No. 1079.

#### Reck *v.*Illinois.

May 6, 1946.

*Wm. Scott Stewart*for petitioner.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Illinois denied.
#### MOUNTJOY v. TWENTIETH CENTURY-FOX FILM CORP. et al.

No. 7585.

United States District Court W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Sept. 23, 1952.

Philip L. Levi, Solbert M. Wasserstrom, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Joseph J. Kelly, Jr., and Spencer, Fane, Britt & Browne, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.

REEVES, Chief Judge.

These motions have been examined together with the facts as they may be gleaned from the complaint and from the affidavit submitted. Both parties have submitted voluminous briefs in support of their respective contentions. All of them involve facts which make it difficult, if not impossible, to reach a proper conclusion upon motions to dismiss.

It is specifically provided by rule 8(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A., that: “In pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively * * * estoppel * * * res judicata * * * statute of limitations * * * and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.”

It is not contemplated by the rule that such pleas shall be heard on motions to dismiss. However, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Hartmann v. Time, Inc., 166 F.2d 127, loc. cit. 138, 1 A.L.R.2d 370, ruled as follows:

> “Of course the defense of res judicata, ordinarily is pleaded as an affirmative defense under Rule 8(c) of *123the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure but this is a mere matter of form.”

The court reversed the ruling of the trial court for reasons which apparently would, not have existed if the issues had been raised as required by the rule and the facts established by proof at a trial of that issue.

In a more recent case, W. E. Hedger Transp. Corp. v. Ira S. Bushey & Sons, Inc., 186 F.2d 236, loc. cit. 237, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled as follows in reference to the plea of res judicata:

> “This defense should usually 'be pleaded. Rule 8(c), Fed.Rules Civ. Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. But where all the relevant facts are, as here, shown by the court’s own records, of which it takes notice, there appears no good reason why an answer should be first required. At any rate, any irregularity on that score has been expressly waived by the appellant.”

The importance of the case at 'bar and the clear provision of the rules makes it incumbent upon the defendants to raise these defenses by affirmative allegations and when that is done, then the issue of limitation, res judicata, or estoppel can the more intelligently be determined when the facts on that issue have been presented.

An examination of the pleadings convinces, however, that upon the pleadings submitted, the court’s ruling should be adverse to said motions.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3374 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3374

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced excise 
     tax rate for portable, electronically-aerated bait containers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2016

  Mr. Nelson introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced excise 
     tax rate for portable, electronically-aerated bait containers.

    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 ``Fishing Equipment Tax Relief Act of 
2016''.

SEC. 2. THREE PERCENT RATE FOR PORTABLE, ELECTRONICALLY-AERATED BAIT 
              CONTAINERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 4161(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by redesignating paragraph (4) as paragraph (5) and by 
inserting after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) 3 percent rate for portable, electronically-aerated 
        bait containers.--In the case of portable, electronically-
        aerated bait containers, paragraph (1) shall be applied by 
        substituting `3 percent' for `10 percent'.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to articles sold by the manufacturer, producer, or importer after 
December 31, 2016.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23.2

 

 

 

NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

In July 2002, the Board of Directors of Wisconsin Electric Power Company ended the engagement of Arthur Andersen LLP as the Company's independent public accountants, and engaged Deloitte & Touche LLP to serve as the Company's independent public accountants for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002.  For more information, see the Company's current report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on July 8, 2002.  

After reasonable efforts, the Company has been unable to obtain Arthur Andersen LLP's written consent to the incorporation by reference of Arthur Andersen LLP's report on the Company's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2001, which is included in this Form 10-K, into the following Registration Statement:

- Registraton Statement on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-101054) - First Mortgage Bonds and Debt Securities.

Accordingly, the Company has omitted Arthur Andersen LLP's consent in reliance upon Rule 437a under the Securities Act of 1933, which permits the Company to dispense with the requirement to file the written consent of Arthur Andersen LLP under the circumstances.

Arthur Andersen LLP has not consented to the incorporation of their report included in this Form 10-K into the Registration Statement listed above.  Therefore, with respect to transactions in the Company's securities pursuant to the Registration Statement that are made on or after the date this annual report on Form 10-K is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur Andersen LLP will not have any liability under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 for any untrue statements of a material fact contained in the Company's financial statements audited by Arthur Andersen LLP or for any omission to state a material fact required to be stated in those financial statements and thus no claim could be asserted against Arthur Andersen LLP under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act.  To the extent provided in Section 11(b)(3)(C) of the Securities Act, however, other persons who are liable under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act, including the Company's officers and directors, may still rely on Arthur Andersen's original audit report as being made by an expert for purposes of establishing a due diligence defense under Section 11(b) of the Securities Act.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Daniel R. McDonell, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Jewett Cameron Trading Company Ltd..;

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 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)) for the registrant and have:

a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer 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):

a)

all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:

September 15, 2006

By:

Daniel R. McDonell

Daniel R. McDonell,

Chief Financial Officer
No. 1151.

#### Rohmer et al. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

June 10, 1946.

*Watson Washburn*for petitioners.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Sewall Key, Helen R. Carloss*and *Melva M. Graney*for respondent.

Briefs were filed as *amici curiae*by *J. Robert Rubin*and *Samuel D. Cohen*for Loew’s Incorporated et al., and by *Roswell Magill*and *George G. Tyler,*in support of the petition.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### In the Matter of Lucas J.R., an Infant. Genesee County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Jennifer B., Ap*1235pellant.

[852 NYS2d 875]

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision at Family Court. Present—Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Pine and Gorski, JJ.
* Judge King did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1933
JASPER E. BOYKIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY; ALLSTATE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED; NATIONAL EMBLEM INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-686-3-17) Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 3, 1999 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, * Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Jasper E. Boykin, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas C. Salane, TURNER, PADGET, GRAHAM & LANEY, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina; Frederick Scott Rhine, GESSLER, HUGHES & SOCOL, LTD., Chicago, Illinois, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Jasper E. Boykin appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motions to vacate a settlement and for reconsideration. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error and no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Boykin v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. CA-97-686-3-17 (D.S.C. May 26 & June 2, 1998).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
Exhibit 32

Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Zenith National Insurance Corp. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Stanley R. Zax, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and William J. Owen, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his 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 operations of the Company.

|/s/STANLEY R. ZAX  |  |                                    
|------------------ |  | -----------------------------------
|Name:              |  | Stanley R. Zax                     
|Title:             |  | Chairman of the Board and President
|Date:              |  | July 21, 2004                      
|/s/WILLIAM J. OWEN |  |                                    
|Name:              |  | William J. Owen                    
|Title:             |  | Chief Financial Officer            
|Date:              |  | July 21, 2004                      

---



QuickLinks
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0426 JESUS VILLANUEVA,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee. ORDER

Appellant JesusVillanueva has filed a motion for a 90-day extension oftime to file his opening brief. He has also filed a motion for appointment ofcounsel. Having considered and denied Villaneuva's motion for appointment of counsel twice previously, we decline to consider it again. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant has until January 30, 2024, to file his opening brief. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. DATED this-C-3 day ofOctober, 2023. Forthe Court,
ChiefJustice 10/23/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0426
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 23

                             CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
                          CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We have issued our report dated May 22, 1998 accompanying the consolidated 
financial statements included in the Annual Report of York Research 
Corporation and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended February 28, 
1998. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in 
the Registration Statements of York Research on Forms S-3 (File No. 33-36056, 
effective August 16, 1990; File No. 33-73616, effective November 2, 1994; 
File No. 33-89418, effective February 22, 1995; File No. 33-90654, effective 
April 6, 1995; File No. 333-10035, effective August 29, 1996; and File No. 
333-14151, effective October 24, 1996) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-63730, 
effective June 3, 1993; File No. 33-67616, effective August 20, 1993; File 
No. 33-75850, effective March 2, 1994; File No. 33- 74730, effective July 2, 
1994; and File No. 333-11781, effective September 11, 1996).

GRANT THORNTON LLP


New York, New York
May 22, 1998