alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350,**
 **AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**
 **OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Trintiy3 Corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven D. Hargreaves, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
 
 (1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 
 
 Dated: September 2, 2004
/s/ Steven D. HargreavesBy: Steven D. HargreavesIts: Chief Financial Officer 
 
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Trinity3 Corporation and will be retained by Trinity3 Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>



<ARTICLE>                                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                  8,547
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>            39,669
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                 27,325
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                   26,762
<LOANS>                               204,205
<ALLOWANCE>                             1,823
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        288,551
<DEPOSITS>                            225,276
<SHORT-TERM>                           15,584
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                     4,405
<LONG-TERM>                            27,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                  253
<OTHER-SE>                             16,033
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>        288,551
<INTEREST-LOAN>                        10,993
<INTEREST-INVEST>                       3,499
<INTEREST-OTHER>                          266
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                       14,758
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                      5,876
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      8,106
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                   6,652
<LOAN-LOSSES>                              45
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                         5,085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         2,798
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>              2,009
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            2,009
<EPS-BASIC>                               .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                             .81
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                           7.14
<LOANS-NON>                                 0
<LOANS-PAST>                              335
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                           27
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                        1,798
<CHARGE-OFFS>                              46
<RECOVERIES>                               26
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                       1,823
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                    1,823
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    63



</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this Yearly Report of West Africa Gold, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
Axtell, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.

April 6, 2004
                                                    /s/Richard Axtell
                                                    -----------------
                                                    Richard Axtell
                                                    Chief Executive Officer
                                                    And Chief Financial Officer
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5178-17T3

JOHN GENTLESS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

MAYOR AND BOROUGH 

COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH

OF STRATFORD,

Defendants-Respondents.

_____________________________

Argued June 5, 2019 – Decided June 21, 2019

Before Judges Reisner and Mawla.

On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Camden County, Docket No. L-3344-17.

John Gentless, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Stuart A. Platt argued the cause for respondent (Platt & 

Riso, PC, attorneys; Stuart A. Platt, on the brief). 

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the 

internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-5178-17T3

In order to comply with the Borough of Stratford's court-approved fair 

share affordable housing plan, the Borough Council adopted Ordinance 2017-

11 (the ordinance), adding a housing component to the

rehabilitation/redevelopment plan for a dilapidated shopping center. Before 

adopting the ordinance, the Council received a resolution from the Borough's 

Joint Land Use Board (the Board), recommending adoption of the proposed 

ordinance as being consistent with the Borough's master plan. In his amended

complaint in lieu of prerogative writs, plaintiff John Gentless1challenged the 

ordinance as not being substantially consistent with the master plan, N.J.S.A. 

40A:12A-7(d), asserted that the public notice of its proposed adoption was 

inadequate under N.J.S.A. 40:49-2(a), and contended that one of the Board 

members had a conflict of interest because he allegedly lived within two hundred

feet of the shopping center. 

In a comprehensive written opinion, Assignment Judge Deborah 

Silverman Katz addressed and rejected each of plaintiff's arguments. Among 

other things, she noted that plaintiff produced no legally competent evidence 

that the allegedly-conflicted Board member owned or had an interest in property

near the shopping center. The judge also found that the Board's 

 

1 Plaintiff was formerly the Borough's Mayor. 
3

A-5178-17T3

recommendation, concerning consistency with the master plan, was based on 

expert planning testimony that the Board credited, and the Council's public 

notice provided sufficient information to satisfy N.J.S.A. 40:49-2(a). 

On this appeal from Judge Silverman Katz's June 5, 2018 order dismissing 

his complaint, plaintiff raises the same arguments he presented in the trial court. 

We affirm for the reasons stated in the judge's comprehensive written opinion. 

Defendant's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion. 

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.
FMCS | 250 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov

NEWS RELEASE

Tue., Sept. 26, 2023 Contact: Greg Raelson

For Immediate Release Director, Congressional & Public Affairs

Website: www.fmcs.gov Phone: (202) 606-8081

FMCS Arbitration Request Fees Increasing Oct. 1

WASHINGTON, D.C. (Sept. 26, 2023) – The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS)

will be increasing fees for the Agency’s arbitration services effective Oct. 1, following a review 

of the current fee schedule. 

The decision was made due to many factors, including the rising expenses of technology and 

the administrative costs of running the program.

The FMCS arbitration program involves providing panels of vetted, private, neutral arbitrators 

experienced in labor relations issues to parties upon request. Private arbitration, different from

federal mediation, utilizes an arbitrator to make a final and binding decision on the outcome of 

negotiations between parties. Whereas federal mediators neither dictate outcomes nor make 

decisions; rather, they help parties examine underlying issues and interests and guide them 

through processes toward resolution.

Arbitration is part of the full range of high-quality labor relations services for which FMCS has 

been known since its establishment in 1947. 

A summary of the new fees are as follows:

• Request for a Panel of arbitrators processed online: $100 

• Request for a Panel of arbitrators (up to 13) processed manually by FMCS staff: $175

• Request for List of arbitrators (up to 13) processed manually by FMCS staff: $175

There remains no charge for the labor mediation and relationship development services offered 

by the Agency through its commissioned mediator employees and funded by the U.S. Congress. 

Further details are available in the August notice in the Federal Register: 

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/02/2023-16431/notice-of-fee-increasefor-arbitration-services

###
FMCS | 250 E Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20427 | 202-606-8100 | www.fmcs.gov

The U.S. Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service (FMCS) is the nation’s premier public agency 

for dispute resolution and conflict management. FMCS was created by Congress as a neutral 

and independent government agency upon enactment of the Labor-Management Relations Act 

of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act) and mandated to resolve industrial conflict and promote labormanagement peace and cooperation, minimizing the impact of these disputes on the free flow 

of commerce. With headquarters in Washington, D.C. and offices across the country, the agency 

has a proud track record of decades of effective dispute resolution and conflict management 

services for employers and unions across industries and work activities in the private, public, and 

federal sectors. FMCS is also recognized for its success facilitating negotiated rulemaking 

processes and for its robust employment mediation program in the federal sector as well as its 

global program, partnering with more than 60 countries to provide international consulting and 

training. For more on FMCS or to request services, visit www.fmcs.gov
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Statement of Commissioner Carl Bentzel on Coalition for Reimagined Mobility Report: Solving the Global Supply Chain Crisis with Data Sharing\u00a0","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GsCanJbsjq\"><a href=\"\/statement-bentzel-on-coalition-for-reimagined-mobility-report\/\">Statement of Commissioner Carl Bentzel on Coalition for Reimagined Mobility Report: Solving the Global Supply Chain Crisis with Data Sharing\u00a0<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-bentzel-on-coalition-for-reimagined-mobility-report\/embed\/#?secret=GsCanJbsjq\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Commissioner Carl Bentzel on Coalition for Reimagined Mobility Report: Solving the Global Supply Chain Crisis with Data Sharing\u00a0” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"GsCanJbsjq\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roswell BOWMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-7174.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 4, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 15, 2010.

Roswell Bowman, Appellant Pro Se. C. Nicks Williams, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roswell Bowman seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bowman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are *810adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
_______________________________________ __ 

### Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



## September 9, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


## 135960 Michael F. Cavanag h Elizabeth A. Weave r Marilyn Kell y Maura D. Corriga n 

## PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, J ustices



## v SC: 135960 COA: 279002 Oakland CC: 2004-194379-FC ROBERT ANTHON Y BURGESS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 23, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s0828 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 9, 2008

Clerk
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov","title":"COVID-19 Screening - Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"GsMVMh2erU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/covid-19-screening\/\">COVID-19 Screening<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/covid-19-screening\/embed\/#?secret=GsMVMh2erU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“COVID-19 Screening” — Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service\" data-secret=\"GsMVMh2erU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/* <![CDATA[ *\/\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/* ]]> *\/\n<\/script>\n","description":"FMCS Covid-19 Screening Today's Date:     FEDERAL MEDIATION AND CONCILATION SERVICE COVID-19 SCREENING           PLEASE READ EACH QUESTION CAREFULLY AND CHECK THE ANSWER THAT APPLIES TO YOU YES\/NO 1. Have you experienced any of the following symptoms in the past 48 hours: fever or chills cough shortness of breath or [...]","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.fmcs.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/FMCS-logo-1-final14.png"}
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

###### Federal Railroad Administration 

          - [Docket No.'s FRA-2000-6923 and FRA-2000-6924]

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has cancelled the public hearing on the captioned block signal applications, because docketed applications FRA-2000-6923 and FRA-2000-6924 have been withdrawn by the railroad. 

The hearing had been scheduled for February 6, 2001, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. 

                    The withdrawn CSX Transportation, Incorporated's applications were seeking approval of the proposed discontinuance and removal of the manual block systems (DCS Operating Rules), on the single secondary track, between Weir, milepost 13.3 and Dock, milepost 28.2, near New Bedford, Massachusetts, New Bedford Subdivision, and on the single secondary track, between Swamp, milepost 0.0 and Wharf, milepost 12.0, near Fall River, Massachusetts, Fall River Subdivision, Albany Service Lane, and re-designation of the secondary tracks to industrial tracks. (See the original hearing notice in                     **Federal Register**                     Vol. 66, No. 9, Friday, January 12, 2001, page 2951.)                 

The FRA regrets any inconvenience occasioned by the cancellation of this hearing. 

Issued in Washington, DC on January 31, 2001. 

Michael J. Logue, 

Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Compliance and Program Implementation. 

[FR Doc. 01-3130 Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00080-CV

Appellants, Central Austin Apartments, LLC; UP-32nd Street, LLC; and UP-32nd Street

Hospitality, LLC// Cross-Appellants, East Avenue Property Owners’ Association, Inc. and

UP Austin Holdings, LP and UP Austin Land Holdings, LP

v.

Appellees, UP Austin Holdings, LP; UP Austin Land Holdings, LP; and East Avenue

Property Owners’ Association, Inc.// Cross-Appellees, Central Austin Apartments, LLC;

UP-32nd Street, LLC; and UP-32nd Street Hospitality, LLC

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 53RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-11-003367, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Counsel for appellants/cross appellees Central Austin Apartments, LLC; UP-32nd

Street, LLC; and UP-32nd Street Hospitality, LLC and counsel for appellees/cross-appellants UP

Austin Holdings, LP; UP Austin Land Holdings, LP; and East Avenue Property Owners’

Association, Inc. have filed a “Joint Notice of Settlement and Agreed Motion to Issue the Mandate.”

The parties seek remand of this case to the district court for dismissal with prejudice in light of their

settlement agreement. 

We withdraw our opinion and judgment dated December 8, 2014, and substitute

the following opinion and judgment in their place. We grant the parties’ motion in part, vacate

the district court’s judgment without reference to the merits, and remand this case to the
district court for rendition of judgment in accordance with the parties’ agreement. See Tex. R. App.

P. 42.1(a)(2)(B).

 

Jeff Rose, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose and Justice Pemberton;

 Former Chief Justice Jones not participating

Vacated and Remanded on Joint Motion

Filed: February 6, 2015

2