alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| **Summary of Significant Accounting Policies (Narrative) (Details)** | 9 Months Ended |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| Debt Instrument, Year of Maturity                                    | 2019           |
| Canyons Obligation [Member]                                          |           |
| Debt Instrument, Year of Maturity                                    | 2063           |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Debt Instrument, Year of Maturity
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**mtn_DebtInstrumentYearofMaturity**Namespace Prefix:**mtn_**Data Type:**xbrli:gYearItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_LongtermDebtTypeAxis=mtn_CanyonsObligationMember**Namespace Prefix:****Data Type:**na**Balance Type:****Period Type:** |
No. 1144.

#### Wilson *v.*Johnston, Warden.

June 10, 1946.

Petitioner *pro se.*

*Solicitor General McGrath, Robert S. Erdahl*and *Beatrice Rosenberg*for respondent.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350****)**     The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. (the “Registrant”)hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 31, 2006 fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial conditionand results of operations of the Registrant.                                                   /s/ Michael W. Helser   Michael W. Helser, Treasurer and   Chief Financial Officer   February 5, 2007**Note:**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and will be retainedby Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
46
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8) pertaining to the 1990 Stock Plan for Key Employees of Temtex
Industries, Inc. and its Subsidiaries and the Outside Directors Stock Option
Plan of Temtex Industries, Inc. of our report dated October 25, 1996, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Temtex
Industries, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
August 31, 1996.




                                                   /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                                   ---------------------
                                                   ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas, Texas
November 25, 1996
#### BURNS v. SPILLER et al.

Civ. No. 24163.

District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia.

March 31, 1945.

*300Walter W. Burns, of Washington, D. C., pro se.

Edward M. Curran, U. S. Atty., and Daniel B. Maher, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Washington, D. C., for defendants.

PINE, Associate Justice.

On May 6, 1944, plaintiff filed this action against nine defendants. Two have been served, namely Stewart M. Grayson and Arlington A. McCallum. These two have moved to dismiss on the ground that “The complaint alleges a conspiracy, but fails to state any tortious acts on the part of the defendants in violation of the plaintiff’s

rights or in connection with the alleged conspiracy.”

The complaint consists of *32*legal-size typewritten pages. It is in contravention of Rule 8(a) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which provides that “A pleading which sets forth' a claim for relief * * * shall contain * * * a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” It also is in contravention of Rule 8(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides that “Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct.” A large part of the complaint is made up of evidentiary matter.

Plaintiff alleges that he brings this suit against the defendants “as members of conspiracies, against plaintiff, to-first have plaintiff declared insane and later when this attempt failed, to deprive plaintiff of rights assured plaintiff by and under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States.” His alleged grievances relate mainly to certain experiences as a Colonel in the army of the United States during the year 1941. The gist of the civil action of conspiracy is the overt or tortious act complained of.1 Looking through the complaint, I find no tortious acts alleged, with the exception of certain alleged slanderous statements, which are both privileged2 and barred by the statute of limitations.3

The motion to dismiss is therefore granted.

1

 Nalle v. Oyster, 1913, 230 U.S. 165, 183, 33 S.Ct. 1043, 57 L.Ed. 1439; Ewald v. Lane, 1930, 70 App.D.C. 89, 104 F.2d 222, 223; certiorari denied 308 U.S. 568, 60 S.Ct. 81, 84 L.Ed. 477; Hansen v. Nicoll, 1913, 40 App.D.C. 228, 236, Ann. Cas.1914C, 759; State of Missouri v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 8 Cir., 1939, 107 F.2d 343, 348; Lewis Invisible Stitch Machine Co. v. Columbia Machine Corporation, 2 Cir., 1936, 80 F.2d 862, 864; Sidney Morris Co. v. National Association of Manufacturers, 7 Cir., 1930, 40 F.2d 620, 624.

2

 Spalding v. Vilas, 161 U.S. 483, 16 S.Ct. 631, 40 L.Ed. 780; DeArnaud v. Ainsworth, 24 App.D.C. 167, 5 L.R.A., N.S., 163.

3

 Sec. 12—201, D.C.Code 1940; Pearson v. O’Connor, D.C., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 521; Hartford Empire Co. v. Glenshaw Glass Co., D.C., 47 F.Supp. 711.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                   DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     DEC-25-1999
<CASH>                          $  3,217,000
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                     33,741,000
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                       35,853,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  83,416,000
<PP&E>                           104,836,000
<DEPRECIATION>                   (61,492,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   140,646,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             31,114,000
<BONDS>                                    0
<COMMON>                           5,031,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<OTHER-SE>                        91,908,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     140,646,000
<SALES>                          404,032,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  99,187,000
<CGS>                            312,404,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     78,521,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   7,310,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   1,438,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1,541,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   10,377,000
<INCOME-TAX>                       4,101,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                       6,276,000
<EPS-BASIC>                           1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                           1.17


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GLIATECH
INC'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          24,893
<SECURITIES>                                     1,005
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,056
<ALLOWANCES>                                        69
<INVENTORY>                                        679
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,051
<PP&E>                                           3,010
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,636
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,237
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,792
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,445
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,237
<SALES>                                          1,662
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,550
<CGS>                                              465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      465
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,801
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    27
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,436)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,436)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,436)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.57)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.57)
        

</TABLE>
No. 1171.

#### Birch Ranch & Oil Co. *v.*Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

June 10, 1946.

*Walter H. Maloney*for petitioner.

*Solicitor General McGrath, Sewall Key, Helen R. Carloss*and *Louise Foster*for respondent.,

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 19, 2007

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-11478

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 06-04819-CV-AR-S

BKCY No. 05-44442-JJR-13

IN RE: PHILLIP A. TALLEY, 

Debtor.

__________________________________________________________________

PHILLIP A. TALLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,

W.M. COPPAGE,

in his official capacity

Defendants-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(December 19, 2007)
2

Before BLACK, CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Phillip A. Talley appeals the district court’s grant of the motion to dismiss

his complaint he filed against Defendants Alabama Department of Public Safety

and W.M. Coppage. Talley filed a bankruptcy adversary proceeding against the

Defendants after they suspended his driver’s license because of his nonpayment of

traffic tickets. Talley alleges the Defendants violated his bankruptcy stay by

suspending his license after his bankruptcy petition was filed. The bankruptcy

court concluded the traffic fine was a continuation of criminal proceedings

permitted by 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). The district court affirmed. After review of

the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm for the reasons stated in the district

court’s well-reasoned opinion of January 29, 2007.

AFFIRMED.
PAGE>



                                  EXHIBIT 32.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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 of Wilshire Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I,
S. Wilzig Izak, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do 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 my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or 78o(d); and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: March 31, 2005

                                                  By: /s/ S. Wilzig Izak
                                                  -----------------------
                                                  S. Wilzig Izak
                                                  Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17890]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available 
for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested 
persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated 
in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the 
acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether 
the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards 
in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, 
nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than September 18, 2017.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Kathryn Haney, Director of 
Applications) 1000 Peachtree Street NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30309. 
Comments can also be sent electronically to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c081b0b0aca9a3a1b4a9afaeb3ee83afadada5aeb4b380a1b4aceea6b2a2eeafb2a7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8f9c8c8d4d1dbd9ccd1d7d6cb96fbd7d5d5ddd6cccbf8d9ccd496decada96d7cadf">[email protected]</span></a>:
    1. SmartFinancial, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee; to merge with 
Capstone Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly acquire Capstone 
Bank, both in Tuscaloosa, Alabama.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, August 18, 
2017.
Yao-Chin Chao,
Assistant Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2017-17890 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**I, Christopher F. Virgulak, certify that:1) I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/A of General Cable Corporation;2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3) Intentionally omitted;4) The registrant’s other 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)) andinternal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and15d-15(f)), for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal controlover financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and     (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee 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 ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date:December 7, 2005/s/Christopher F.Virgulak
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Oliveri, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 354]

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of rape in the first degree (Penal *1209Law § 130.35 [1]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, his waiver of the right to appeal was effective despite the fact that it was not reduced to writing, and we otherwise conclude that the waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered *(see People v Egan,*6 AD3d 1206, 1206-1207 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 639 [2004]; *People v Willis,*2 AD3d 1322 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 748 [2004]). The waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to Supreme Court’s suppression rulings *(see People v Kemp,*94 NY2d 831, 833 [1999]), as well as his contentions that the indictment is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that he was denied due process during pretrial procedures *(see People v Simms,*269 AD2d 788 [2000], *lv denied*94 NY2d 952 [2000]).

Although a defendant’s jurisdictional challenge survives both a guilty plea and waiver of the right to appeal *(see People v Hansen,*95 NY2d 227, 230-231 [2000]; *People v June,*30 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 813, 868 [2006]), here we reject defendant’s jurisdictional challenge. The court acquired jurisdiction pursuant to a grand jury indictment, and defendant challenges jurisdictional defects in the felony complaints rather than in the indictment. By pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his contention with respect to the defense of the statute of limitations *(see People v Hayes,*39 AD3d 1173, 1175 [2007], *lv denied*9 NY3d 923 [2007]; *People v Gerber,*182 AD2d 252, 260-261 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 1026 [1992]). Although the further contention of defendant that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial survives both his waiver of the right to appeal and his plea of guilty *(see Egan,*6 AD3d at 1207), defendant has raised that contention for the first time on appeal and therefore has failed to preserve it for our review *(see People v Robinson,*1 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 745 [2004]). The contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel “does not survive his guilty plea or his waiver of the right to appeal because there was no showing that the plea bargaining process was infected by [the] allegedly ineffective assistance or that defendant entered the plea because of his attorney[’s] allegedly poor performance” *(People v Dean,*48 AD3d 1244, 1245 [2008] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

In addition, by pleading guilty, defendant forfeited his contentions with respect to alleged discovery violations, preindictment prosecutorial misconduct, and the People’s failure to preserve evidence *(see People v Di Raffaele,*55 NY2d 234, 240 [1982]; *People v Mayo,*45 AD3d 1361, 1362-1363 [2007]; *Gerber,*182 AD2d at 260-261). We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that none requires reversal. Present— Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Centra, Fahey and Peradotto, JJ.
Exhibit 4.3


MULTIBAND CORPORATION


5605 Green Circle Drive


Minnetonka, MN 55343


 


PURCHASE CONFIRMATION


 


	[Investor name and address]	STATEMENT DATE:	,20 _____


 


TRANSACTION INFORMATION


 


SECURITY DESCRIPTION: Multiband Corporation Renewable Unsecured
Subordinated Note


TRANSACTION: PURCHASE


TYPE OF OWNERSHIP:


SSN:


 


	NOTE ID	 	TERM	 	PURCHASE DATE	 	MATURITY DATE	 	PAYMENT SCHEDULE


 


 


	PRINCIPAL AMOUNT	 	INTEREST RATE	 	INVESTOR FEES	 	NET AMOUNT


 


 


NOTE: These securities are issued in book-entry form only; no
physical certificates will be provided.


 


INTEREST PAYMENT INFORMATION


	ACCOUNT NAME:	BANK:
	ACCOUNT #:	ROUTING NUMBER
	INTEREST PAYMENT METHOD: ACH (Direct Deposit)	 


 


Your interest payments will be automatically deposited directly
into the account listed above. Please verify the account information. If it is incorrect, please call Investor Services at [_________________________].


 


All interest payments will be made in accordance with the Interest
payment schedule shown in the previous section. If an interest payment date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the
payment will be made on the next business day.


 


PLEASE CALL MULTIBAND CORPORATION INVESTOR SERVICES AT 763-504-3000
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.