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

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONDENSED BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                            29,912
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                  33,188
<CASH>                                           1,651
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                           2,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  69,396
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 10,150
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,092
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    69,396
<PREMIUMS>                                           0
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                                535
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                     127
<BENEFITS>                                         167
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                         60
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                                71
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    364
<INCOME-TAX>                                       132
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                232
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       232
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Gary Lee SMITH, Appellant.

No. 10-1455.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Nov. 11, 2010.

Filed: Feb. 15, 2011.

Gary Lee Smith, Marion, IL, pro se.

Katharine Fincham, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, MO (Beth Phillips, U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee.

Before LOKEN, MURPHY, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Gary Lee Smith appeals the district court’s1 denial in part of his Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g) motion to return property. Upon careful review, *see Jackson v. United States,*526 F.3d 394, *985396 (8th Cir.2008) (district court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo and its findings of fact for clear error), this court finds no reversible error. Specifically, this court agrees that Smith was not entitled to the return of the Chevrolet Tahoe, which had been repossessed by a lienholder. *See id.*at 396-97 (government may satisfy its burden by showing cognizable claim of ownership or right to possession adverse to the movant’s). This court also concludes Smith was not entitled to the return of the property that he admitted had been administratively forfeited, and as to which he first alleged insufficient notice more than five years after final publication of the notice of seizure. *See*18 U.S.C. § 983(e)(1) (any person entitled to written notice in any nonjudicial civil forfeiture proceeding under civil forfeiture statute who does not receive such notice may file motion to set aside declaration of forfeiture), (e)(3) (motion under § 983(e)(1) may be filed not later than 5 years after date of final publication of notice of seizure of property), (e)(5) (motion filed under § 983(e) shall be exclusive remedy for seeking to set aside declaration of forfeiture under civil forfeiture statute).

Accordingly, we affirm.

1

. The Honorable Richard E. Dorr, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### John J. BOWMAN, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Anya KOVSLEK; Joel Ziegler; G. Esparza; Robert Trybus; Jeffrey Duranko; Robert Roff; Matthew Geyer; Eric Elza; Dane Zimmerman; Brian Callihan; Veronica Fernandez; Kenny Adams; D. Shaw, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-2336.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 10, 2011.

Decided: Feb. 16, 2011.

John J. Bowman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan McGonigal, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

John J. Bowman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting the Appellees an extension of time in which to respond to Bowman’s complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b); *Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,*337 U.S. 541, 545-46, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). The order Bowman seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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.

*DISMISSED.*
EXHIBIT 13.1

Certification by
the Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of
China Sunergy Co., Ltd.(the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 initially filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 26, 2012, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Form 20-F filed on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Stephen Zhifang Cai, Chief Executive 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 to my knowledge:



(1)	The Report fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



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



Date: August 13, 2012





By: /s/ Stephen
Zhifang Cai

Name: Stephen Zhifang
Cai

Title: Chief Executive
Officer





16
Securities And Exchange Commission



Washington, D.C.  20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT



PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



Date of report: March 31, 2003

Date of earliest event reported: March 31, 2003







Pfizer Inc.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



|Delaware
(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation) | 1-3619
(Commission File Number) | 13-5315170
(I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)
|------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------

|235 East 42nd Street
New York, New York
(Address of principal executive offices) | 10017
(Zip Code)
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------



Registrant's telephone number, including area code:

(212) 573-2323

Item 2. Acquisition or Disposition of Assets

The sale of Pfizer's Adams confectionary business to Cadbury Schweppes plc for $4.2 billion in cash closed on March 31, 2003. The sale was a negotiated, arms-length transaction. Pfizer's press release is included as Exhibit 99 and is incorporated by reference.



Item 7.  Exhibits

Exhibit 99  -  Press Release of Pfizer Inc.

dated March 31, 2003.



SIGNATURE

Under the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the authorized undersigned.

PFIZER INC.



By: s/ Margaret M. Foran

Margaret M. Foran

Title: Vice President-Corporate Governance

and Secretary





Dated: March 31, 2003



EXHIBIT INDEX

|Exhibit No. | Description                                                                                                                              
|----------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|            |                                                                                                                                          
|            |                                                                                                                                          
|99          | Press Release announcing the closing of the sale of Pfizer's Adams confectionary business to Cadbury Schweppes plc, dated March 31, 2003.
|            |
#### Medlock *v.*Smith.

Submitted March 2,

Decided March 27, 1901.

Certiorari. Before Judge Russell. Gwinnett superior court.August 4, 1900.

*T. M. Peeples,*for plaintiff ib error. *W. F. Simmons,*contra.

Eish, J.

The motion for a new trial, as verified by the judge of the city court in which the case was originally tried, amounts to no more than a general complaint that the verdict was contrary to and not supported by the evidence. An examination of the brief of evidence shows that this complaint is not well founded, there being ample testimony to sustain the finding of the jury. The necessary conclusion is that the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari, the petition for which assigned no error except the refusal of the city court to grant a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
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 State

          - 22 CFR Part 41

### CFR Correction

In title 22 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1 to 299, revised as of April 1, 2001, part 41 is amended on page 195 by removing the second § 41.57. 

[FR Doc. 01-55531 Filed 9-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORT BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 Quarterly Report of Tilden Associates, Inc. (the
"Company") Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I Robert
Baskind, Chief Executive and Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

       (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
       15(d) of the Securities and 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.

Date:  November 19, 2003                 /s/ ROBERT BASKIND
                                         --------------------------------------
                                         Robert Baskind
                                         Chief Executive Officer and
                                         Acting Chief Financial Officer





The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter
63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

                                       22
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 6, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 13536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5582]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 11 a.m., Monday, March 12, 2001.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Lynn S. Fox, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3203.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: March 2, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-5582 Filed 3-2-01; 2:21 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
CASE ANNOUNCEMENTS

*October 28, 2009*

[Cite as *10/28/09 Case Announcements #2,*2009-Ohio-5681.]

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS

2009-1968.

#### State ex rel. Tremmel v. Erie Cty. Bd. of Elections.

In Mandamus and Prohibition. This cause originated in this court on the filing of a complaint for a writ of mandamus and prohibition involving an expedited election matter. Upon consideration thereof,

It is ordered by the court, sua sponte, that the parties shall file their briefs and evidence in this case no later than 4 p.m. on Friday, October 30, 2009. Respondents shall also file their answer simultaneously with the filing of their brief and evidence.

The parties shall serve all documents filed in this case by personal service, facsimile transmission, or e-mail on the date of the filing. The parties shall also provide the Clerk’s office with an electronic copy of any document filed in this case. The Clerk’s office shall refuse to file any requests for extension of time in this ease.
#### VINCE *v.*THE STATE.

Merely refusing, upon the demand of a levying officer, to unlock a door of a house, in order to enable him to enter the same for the purpose of levying a lawful process upon goods therein contained, is not a violation of section 306 of the Penal Code, which makes it a misdemeanor to “ knowingly and willfully obstruct, resist, or oppose any officer of this State, or other person duly authorized, in. serving or attempting to serve or execute any lawful process or order.”

Submitted July 15,

Decided July 23, 1901.

Accusation of obstructing legal process. Before Judge Adams. City court of Dublin. June 26, 1901.

*Akerman & Akerman,*for plaintiff in error.

*F. G-. Corker, solicitor,*contra.

Lumpkin, P. J.

Taking the evidence in this case most strongly against the accused, the State showed nothing more than that she refused to comply with the demand of a constable to unlock the door of her house in order to enable him to enter the same for the purpose of levying a distress warrant upon goods in the house. It-does not appear that she did anything which even tended to obstruct the movements of the officer, or in any manner resisted or opposed any effort on his part to enter the house. If, when he arrived, the door had been open and the accused had shut and locked *1071it to prevent an entrance by the officer, the case would have been different. As'it was, when he attempted to make the levy he found the door already locked, and the accused simply declined, On his demand, to open it. In *Davis*v. *State,*76 *Ga.*721, this court held: “In the statute making it criminal to knowingly and wilfully obstruct, resist, or oppose any sheriff, coroner, or other officer of this State, or other person duly authorized, in serving or attempting to serve or execute any lawful process, the word ‘obstruct’ must be construed with reference to the words, ‘ resist or oppose,’ which imply force. The crime consists in obstructing, resisting, or opposing an officer, not merely impeding or defeating the execution of the process with which the officer is armed.” The case in hand, upon its facts, falls within the principle embraced in the words just quoted. It affirmatively appears that the accused did not obstruct, resist, or oppose the officer, but at most simply refused to give him .any assistance in executing the process in his hands.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concurring.*
2009-1890.

#### State v. Humphrey.

Cuyahoga App. No. 89476, 2008-Ohio-685. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
CONVERTIBLE PROMISSORY NOTE AGREEMENT





This Convertible Promissory Note Agreement (“Note”) is entered into as of this 23rd day of February 2011, by and betweent JMJ FINANCIAL (“Holder”) and Nacel Energy Corp. (“Writer”), under the terms and conditions set forth herein.





For $40,000 received, the Writer promises to pay to the order of the Holder of this note or his assignees, the sum of $100,000 with $0 interest, on or before March 23, 2011.





The Writer shall have the right to prepay the principal of this note, along with any interest due thereon, in whole or part prior to its due date without premium or penalty.





Failure to pay any part of the principal or interest of this note when due, or failure to carry out any of the terms or conditions herein, shall authorize the holder of this note to declare as immediately due and payable the then unpaid principal and interest and to exercise any and all of the rights and remedies either at law or in equity possessed by the Holder of this note.





The makers, signers, and endorsers of this note jointly and severally waive presentment, notice of dishonor and protest.





The parties hereto represent and warrant that they possess the full and complete authority to covenant and agree as provided in this Note and, if applicable to release other parties and signatories as provided herein.





If any provision of this Agreement is held by a court of law to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, the remaining provisions of this agreement shall be unaffected by such holding. If the invalidation of any such provision materially alters the agreement of the parties, then the parties shall immediately adopt new provisions to replace those that were declared invalid.





At the Holder’s election, the principal and interest of this note may be converted in part or whole into share of Nacel Energy’s common stock under the same terms as set forth in Document B-02262010b.





Writer:Nacel Energy Corp.Mark ShaftleinChief Executive Officer




HolderJMJ FinancialIts Principal
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.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [FRL-6947-4]

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency. 

# ACTION:

Notice of proposed settlement.

# SUMMARY:

                        The United States Environmental Protection Agency is                               ( print page 12781)                            proposing to enter into a settlement with ABC One Hour Dry Cleaners, Inc, Victor Melts and Martha Melts pursuant to section 122(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, regarding the ABC One Hour Dry Cleaners Superfund Site located in Jacksonville, North Carolina. EPA will consider public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) days. EPA may withdraw from or modify the proposed settlement should such comments disclose facts or considerations which indicate the proposed settlement is inappropriate, improper or inadequate. Copies of the settlement are available from: Ms. Paula Batchelor, U.S. EPA, Region 4 (WMD-CPSB), Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887.                     

Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor within thirty (30) calendar days of the days of this publication. 

Dated: February 6, 2001.

Franklin E. Hill, 

Chief, CERCLA Program Services Branch, Waste Management Division. 

[FR Doc. 01-4865 Filed 2-27-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P