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


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
SEC FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000826821
<NAME> CERBCO, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>          <C>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                     MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                                 10,322
<SECURITIES>                                                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                           8,724
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               30
<INVENTORY>                                                             3,692
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                       24,235
<PP&E>                                                                 25,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                                         13,699
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                         41,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                   5,571
<BONDS>                                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                                  147
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                             17,744
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                           41,884
<SALES>                                                                35,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                       35,671
<CGS>                                                                  26,027
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                          26,027
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         28
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                         2,330
<INCOME-TAX>                                                              917
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                       843
<DISCONTINUED>                                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                                              843
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                            0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                            0.57
        

</TABLE>
78 A.3d 611

#### Ephrem GARCIA, Petitioner v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, Respondent.

No. 118 EM 2013.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 16, 2013.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2013, the Application for Leave to File Original Process and the Petition for Writ of Mandamus are DISMISSED. *See Commonwealth v. Reid,*537 Pa. 167, 642 A.2d 453 (1994) (hybrid representation not permitted). The Prothonotary is directed to forward these filings to counsel of record.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 8, 2020

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. Knight Hawk Coal, LLC, Docket No. LAKE 2019-87-R.

(Issues include whether the Judge erred in overturning the 

Secretary’s revocation of a mine’s ventilation plan.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO 

MEETING: 1-(866) 236-7472

Passcode: 678-100

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552b

Dated: December 12, 2019

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel

Billing Code 6735-01
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1678
MARTIN BOADU, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A94-137-636) Submitted: February 14, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jaime Winthuysen Aparisi, Silver Spring, Maryland, for Petitioner. Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, Acting Assistant Attorney General, David V. Bernal, Assistant Director, Lauren E. Fascett, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Martin Boadu, a native and citizen of Ghana, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Boadu’s motion. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2) (2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. See In Re: Boadu , No. A94-137-636 (B.I.A. June 19, 2007). 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1



DIVALL INSURED INCOME PROPERTIES 2

LIMITED PARTNERSHIP



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Divall Insured Income Properties 2 Limited Partnership (the Company) certifies that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three month period ended September 30,
2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.



|                        |  |                                        |  |                                                               
|----------------------- |  | -------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------
|                        |  | THE PROVO GROUP, INC., General Partner
|                        |  |                                       
|Dated: November 8, 2004 |  | By                                     |  | /s/ Bruce A. Provo                                            
|                        |  |                                        |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer



This certification is
made solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
#### Eli YECHESKEL; Karen Yecheskel, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, f/k/a Countrywide Financial Corporation; Experian Information Solutions, Incorporated, Defendants— Appellees.

No. 10-1111.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.

Decided: Dec. 22, 2010.

Eli Yecheskel, Karen Yecheskel, Appellants Pro Se. Glenn Cline, Ballard Spahr, LLP, Baltimore, Maryland; Sandy David Baron, Alan Barry Sternstein, Shulman, Rogers, Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, Potomac, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Eli and Karen Yecheskel appeal the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motions for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Yecheskel v. Bank of Am. Corp.,*No. 8:09-cv-02335-RWT, 2010 WL 118366 (D.Md. Jan. 7, 2010). 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.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION   EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF NUMED HOME HEALTH CARE,  INC AS OF AND FOR
THE SIX MONTHS  ENDED  SEPTEMBER  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>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         1294
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4636
<ALLOWANCES>                                   305
<INVENTORY>                                    23
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               5824
<PP&E>                                         783
<DEPRECIATION>                                 471
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 10292
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3386
<BONDS>                                        910
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5
<OTHER-SE>                                     5990
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   10292
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               9380
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6918
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3110
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (269)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (269)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (269)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.18


		
	MICON

	Exhibit 4.18


	International Limited

	 












Certificate of Qualification

Pierre Jean Lafleur, P. Eng.




I, Pierre Jean Lafleur, certify that:




1.

At the time of this report I am a resident at 933 Carre Valois, Ste-Therese, Quebec, Canada, J7E 4L8.




2.

I am a registered Professional Geoscientist with the Association of Professional Geoscientists in the Province of Quebec (membership OIQ #39862).




3.

I hold the following academic qualifications:




I am a member of the Canadian Institute of Mines and Metallurgy.

I am a graduate from Ecole Polytechnique of Montreal (B. ENG.).




4.

I have practiced my profession in exploration, geology and mining for more than 25 years, with extensive experience in gold, base metals and industrial minerals as well.




5.

I have visited the Crucitas Project site on a trip to Costa Rica from October 11th to 21st 2005 and took my own samples from the old drill core in storage on site.




6.

I wrote the original report for the Crucitas Project, entitled “Technical report for the Crucitas Project of Vannessa Ventures Ltd. Calgary” dated February, 2006 for Geostat.




7.

The reader should be aware that PJ Lafleur, prior to working with Geostat and writing the February 2006 report, had been called by Lyon Lake in February 1999 to review the CPC and IMC findings as an Independent Consultant.




8.

This certificate applies to the technical report entitled “Las Crucitas Gold Project NI 43101 Summary of the Bankable Feasibility Study and Addendum” dated February 2007. 




9.

I am a Qualified Person according to the National Policy 43-101.  I have read the norm and I understand the terms and implications.




10.

I have not received, nor do I expect to receive directly or indirectly and interest in any form for the Crucitas project from Vannessa Ventures Ltd.




11.

I am responsible for section 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and portions of section 17 related to the resource estimate.




12.

That, as of this date of this certificate, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the technical report contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make this technical report not misleading.




13.

I consent to the filing of the report with any Canadian stock exchange or securities regulatory authority, and any publication by them of the report.




Dated February 21, 2007




“Pierre J. Lafleur”




Pierre Jean Lafleur, P.Eng.
#### James Stephon McDOWELL, a/k/a James S. McDowell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carol E. MITCHELL-HAMILTON; John B. Tomarchio; Tianna R. Randolph; Robert M. Stevenson, III; T. Montgomery; Bryan Sterling; Evelyn Barber, Head Food Supervisor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-7357.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan, 14, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 20, 2016.

James Stephon McDowell, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Before AGEE, WYNN, and'FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

James Stephon McDowell appeals the district court’s order accepting the. recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the *137record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See McDowell v. Mitchell-Hamilton,*No. 9:14-cv-02132-BHH, 2015 WL 4429630 (D.S.C. July 20, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF JUNE 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENT IN FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000802843
<NAME> NOVACARE,INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          23,277
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  231,866
<ALLOWANCES>                                    38,459
<INVENTORY>                                     44,651
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               388,490
<PP&E>                                         122,655
<DEPRECIATION>                                (62,911)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,204,865
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          684,822
<BONDS>                                         54,237
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           686
<OTHER-SE>                                     392,573
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,204,865
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,477,917
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,430,210<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                68,540<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                42,540
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              41,592
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (104,965)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (23,129)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (81,836)
<DISCONTINUED>                               (107,775)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (189,611)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (3.02)<F3>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.02)<F3>
<FN>
<F1>"TOTAL COSTS" CONSIST OF COST OF SERVICES AND SELLING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES.
<F2>"OTHER EXPENSES" CONSIST OF AMORTIZATION OF GOODWILL, MINORITY INTEREST,
PROVISION FOR RESTRUCTURE AND INVESTMENT LOSS, NET, OFFSET BY GAIN FROM
ISSUANCE OF SUBSIDIARY STOCK.
<F3>"EPS" IS CALCULATED USING NET INCOME. EPS FROM CONTINUING OPERATIONS ONLY IS
$(1.30).
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### DELOE et *al.*v. McMAHON *et al.*

No. 6960.

Opinion Filed February 2, 1915.

(146 Pac. 220.)

APPEAL AND ERROR — Case-Made—Settling and Signing — Judge Pro Tempore. Appeal dismissed upon the authority of City of Shawnee v. State Pub. Co. et al., 33 Okla. 363, 125 Pac. 462, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616, and Co-operative Gin & Elev. Co. v. Asbury, 40 Okla. 141, 142 Pac. 802.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

*'Appeal from District Court, Tulsa County; L. M. Poe, Judge.*

Action between C. E. Deloe and others and J. V. McMahon *475and others. From the judgment, the parties first mentioned bring error.

Dismissed.

*Bidctison & Campbell,*for plaintiffs in error.

*Geo. T. Brown,*for defendants in error.

KANE, C. *J.*

This cause comes on to be heard upon a motion to dismiss the appeal herein, filed by coun.se! for defendants in error. It appears that the cause below was tried before H. 13. Schaeffer, Esq., a member of the bar, as judge *pro tern-pore,*who was selected by a written stipulation between the parties. The trial before the judge *pro tempore*resulted in a judgment for the defendants in error, whereupon plaintiffs in error filed a motion for new trial, and the same was by the judge *pro tempore*overruled on the 11th day of May, 1914. In- the order overruling the motion for a new trial, the judge *pro tempore*gave the plaintiffs in error “90 days within which to make case-made, plaintiffs to have 10 days thereafter to suggest amendments; same to be settled within 5 days’ notice, in writing, from ene party to the other.” The case-made was served upon the defendants in error on the 8th day of August, 1914, which was within the 90 days fixed for serving the same by the judge *pro tempore.*No amendments were suggested by the defendants in error, and the plaintiffs in error did not serve the five days’ notice upon defendants in error to settle the case-made, in compliance with the order of the trial judge. On the 9th day of November, 1914, which was subsequent to the time fixed by the judge *pro tempore*for making and serving the case-made and within two days of the expiration of the six months within which an appeal must be perfected, the plaintiffs in error obtained an order from the regular judge of the district court in which said cause was tried, ordering that said case-made be settled upon 24 hours’ notice. On the following day, the 10th day of November, 1914, over the objections of the defendants in error, the judge *pro tempore*and the regular judge signed and settled the case-made which was filed in this court.

*476It seems that the case falls within the rule laid down by this court in *City of Shawnee v. State Pub. Co.,*33 Okla. 363, 125 Pac. 462, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 616, and *Co-Operative Gin & Elev. Co. v. Asbury,*40 Okla. 141, 142 Pac. 802, which hold, in effect, that the term of office of a judge *pro tempore*expires after the last day fixed for suggesting amendments, and that a case-made settled and signed by him after that time is a nullity.

Upon the authority of the foregoing cases, the motion to dismiss the appeal must be sustained. It is so ordered.

All the Justices concur.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 the Quarterly Report of Versar, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence W. Sinnott,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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.

| |                                                                                              | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| | /S/ Lawrence W. SinnottLawrence W. Sinnott
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|

September 6, 2002

128