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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          58,347
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   36,404
<ALLOWANCES>                                       815
<INVENTORY>                                      1,363
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,048
<PP&E>                                         126,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 208,987
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,596
<BONDS>                                         23,458
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            6,701
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,604
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   208,987
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,437
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  136,356
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,075
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,330
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,134
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,609
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,525
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,525
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<CIK> 0000835541
<NAME> SOLECTRON CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-28-1997
<CASH>                                         113,947
<SECURITIES>                                   298,945
<RECEIVABLES>                                  523,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,913
<INVENTORY>                                    590,058
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,581,652
<PP&E>                                         729,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                 351,740
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,010,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          640,330
<BONDS>                                        386,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           115
<OTHER-SE>                                     979,284
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,010,024
<SALES>                                      1,136,820
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,136,820
<CGS>                                        1,013,061
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,013,061
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                56,457
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (136)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 67,502
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,614
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             44,888
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    44,888
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.38
        

</TABLE>
### §§801 to 808. Repealed. Pub. L. 92–181, title V, §5.26(a), Dec. 10, 1971, 85 Stat. 624

Section 801, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(h), 73 Stat. 387, authorized loans by Federal land banks through agents. See section 2020 of this title.

Section 802, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(h), 73 Stat. 387, covered manner of making loan through agents. See section 2020 of this title.

Section 803, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373, placed limits on who could be employed as agent. See section 2020 of this title.

Section 804, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373, covered expenses of and commissions to agents. See section 2020 of this title.

Section 805, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373, provided for addition of expenses of agents to loans. See section 2020 of this title.

Section 806, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373, covered collection of loan payments. See section 2020 of this title.

Section 807, act July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373, covered indorsement of loans and liability thereon. See section 2020 of this title.

Section 808, acts July 17, 1916, ch. 245, title I, §15, 39 Stat. 373; Ex. Ord. No. 6084, Mar. 27, 1933; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(h), 73 Stat. 387, provided when loans were to cease. See section 2020 of this title.
#### § 331.2 Designation of States under paragraph 301(c) of the Act.

Each of the following States has been designated, under paragraph 301(c) of the Act, as a State in which the provisions of Titles I and IV of the Act shall apply to operations and transactions wholly within such State. The Federal provisions apply, effective on the dates shown below:

| State | Effective date of application of Federal provisions |
| --- | --- |
| Alaska | July 31, 1999. |
| Arkansas | June 1, 1981. |
| California | Apr. 1, 1976. |
| Colorado | July 1, 1975. |
| Connecticut | Oct. 1, 1975. |
| Florida | Dec. 2, 1997. |
| Guam | Jan. 21, 1972. |
| Hawaii | Nov. 1, 1995. |
| Idaho | July 1, 1981. |
| Kentucky | Jan. 14, 1972. |
| Maryland | Mar. 31, 1991 |
| Massachusetts | Jan. 12, 1976. |
| Michigan | Oct. 3, 1981. |
| Nebraska | Oct. 1, 1971. |
| Nevada | July 1, 1973. |
| New Hampshire | Aug. 6, 1978. |
| New Jersey | July 1, 1975. |
| New Mexico | Aug. 13, 2007. |
| New York | July 16, 1975. |
| Northern Mariana Islands | Oct. 29, 1979. |
| Oregon | July 1, 1972. |
| Pennsylvania | July 17, 1972. |
| Puerto Rico | June 18, 1971. |
| Rhode Island | Oct. 1, 1981. |
| Tennessee | Oct. 1, 1975. |
| Virgin Islands of the U.S | Nov. 27, 1971. |
| Washington | June 1, 1973. |

[35 FR 19667, Dec. 29, 1970]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting § 331.2, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-10413 

Summary Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RUY GARZA,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:94-CR-191-A

- - - - - - - - - -

April 1, 1996

Before WIENER, PARKER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ruy Garza appeals from his jury trial conviction and

sentence for possession of cocaine with the intent to distribute

and conspiracy to commit the same. The evidence was not

insufficient. See United States v. Vasquez, 953 F.2d 176, 181

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 504 U.S. 946 (1992). The district

court did not err by refusing to allow Garza's counsel to ask the

venire panel questions regarding their beliefs in certain
No. 95-10413

-2-

propositions of law. United States v. Rodriguez, 993 F.2d 1170,

1176 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 1547 (1994). The

district court did not err in denying Garza a mitigating-role

adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. Zuniga,

18 F.3d 1254, 1261 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 214

(1994).

However, the district court exceeded its statutory power

under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) in ordering Garza deported as a

condition of supervised release. See United States v. Quaye, 57

F.3d 447, 450-51 (5th Cir. 1995). Therefore, we ORDER that the

judgment below be amended as follows:

As a condition of supervised release, upon completion

of his term of imprisonment Garza is to be surrendered

to a duly-authorized immigration official for

deportation in accordance with the established

procedures provided by the Immigration and

Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq. As a

further condition of supervised release, if ordered

deported, Garza shall remain outside the United States.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Graham Packaging Holdings Company on Form
10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Warren D. Knowlton, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 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 Graham Packaging Holdings Company.
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: August 7, 2008



|    |  |                        
|--- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Warren D. Knowlton 
|    |  | Warren D. Knowlton     
|    |  | Chief Executive Officer

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

# Data Source

Data Set Focus: Disadvantaged Communities as identified by the Climate and Economic Screening Tool (CEJST)CEJST Link:  https://screeningtool.geoplatform.gov/en/#3/33.47/-97.5Data Compiled By: IC Data Analytics Division, USDA.RD.DATA@usda.gov
Exhibit 32.1



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 on Form 10-QSB of Inverted Paradigms
Corporation (the Company), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stewart York pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, do hereby certify, to my knowledge that:



(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. 78m(a) or 780(d)); 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/ Stewart York                     
|Stewart York                         
|President and Chief Executive Officer
|                                     
|Dated: February 8, 2007              



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Inverted Paradigms Corporation and will be retained by Inverted Paradigms Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2010209EN.01001201.xml

| 31.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 26 April 2010 — Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-201/10)

()

2010/C 209/18

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ze Fu Fleischhandel GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Is the application by analogy of the limitation rule in Paragraph 195 BGB, in the version in force until the end of 2001, to claims for the repayment of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is the application by analogy of the limitation rule in Paragraph 195 BGB, in the version in force until the end of 2001, to claims for the repayment of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty?

| 2. | Is the application of the 30-year limitation period in Paragraph 195 BGB in relation to the recovery of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of proportionality? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the application of the 30-year limitation period in Paragraph 195 BGB in relation to the recovery of wrongly paid export refunds incompatible with the Community-law principle of proportionality?

| 3. | If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, is the application of a longer national limitation period within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, (1) which is determined on the basis of an emergency judicial power in particular cases, by way of judicial development of the law, compatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the reply to the second question is in the affirmative, is the application of a longer national limitation period within the meaning of Article 3(3) of Regulation No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests, (1) which is determined on the basis of an emergency judicial power in particular cases, by way of judicial development of the law, compatible with the Community-law principle of legal certainty?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 32.2


                            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 accompanying Quarterly Report of Jupiter Marine
International Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the six month
period ending January 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Lawrence Tierney, Principal
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, to the
best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.


By: /s/ Lawrence Tierney
    ---------------------------
    Lawrence Tierney
    Principal Financial Officer
    March 15, 2004
#### § 318.13 Mixtures containing product but not amendable to the Act.

Mixtures containing product but not classed as a meat food product under the Act shall not bear the inspection legend or any abbreviation or representation thereof unless manufactured under the food inspection service provided for in part 350 of subchapter B of this chapter. When such mixtures are manufactured in any part of an official establishment, the sanitation of that part of the establishment shall be supervised by Program employees, and the manufacture of such mixtures shall not cause any deviation from the requirement of § 318.1.

[35 FR 15586, Oct. 3, 1970, as amended at 38 FR 29215, Oct. 23, 1973]
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00184-CR

James Thomas Jones, II

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

221st District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 13-04-04212 CR (Count 2)

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

February 19, 2015
# C_2010179EN.01002701.xml

| 3.7.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 179/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.7.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 179/27

---

Action brought on 10 May 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Estonia

(Case C-231/10)

(2010/C 179/43)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by S. Pardo Quintillán and E. Randvere, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Estonia

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (1) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to transpose Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration (1) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Estonia has failed to fulfil its obligations under the directive;

| — | order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Estonia to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 16 January 2009.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 372, p. 19.

---
### SUBCHAPTER I—NONADMITTED INSURANCE
### §4243. Representation

Notwithstanding sections 516, 518(b), 519, and 547(2) of title 28, private counsel retained under section 4241 of this title may represent the United States in litigation in connection with legal services furnished pursuant to the contract entered into with that counsel, subject to the requirements specified in section 4244 of this title.

(Pub. L. 101–647, title XXV, §2590, Nov. 29, 1990, 104 Stat. 4906.)
§ 161.2 Performance of accredited duties in additional States. ( a ) If an accredited veterinarian wishes to perform accredited duties in a State other than the State in which the veterinarian was initially accredited in accordance with § 161.1(e), the accredited veterinarian must complete an application to request authorization to perform accredited duties in the additional State from the Veterinary Official of that State. The Veterinary Official of the additional State may require the accredited veterinarian to complete, prior to performing any accredited duties in the additional State, an orientation in animal health procedures and issues relevant to the additional State. The Veterinary Official shall review the content of each such orientation and shall approve its use after determining that it includes adequate information about animal health agencies, regulatory requirements, administrative procedures, and animal disease issues in the additional State, to prepare an accredited veterinarian from another State to perform accredited duties in the additional State. The Veterinary Official shall also give the State Animal Health Official of the additional State an opportunity to review the contents of the orientation, and invite him or her to participate in developing orientation materials and conducting the orientation.
( b ) An accredited veterinarian may not perform accredited duties in a State in which the accredited veterinarian is not licensed or otherwise permitted by the State's veterinary licensing authority to practice veterinary medicine in that State without a license.
( c ) An accredited veterinarian may not perform accredited duties in a State other than the one in which the veterinarian was initially accredited until the veterinarian receives written authorization from APHIS to perform accredited duties in the additional State.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control numbers 0579-0032 and 0579-0297) [74 FR 65011, Dec. 9, 2009, as amended at 85 FR 10564, Feb. 25, 2020]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6822

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

O'DELL SMITH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, District

Judge. (CR-93-3, CA-96-7-7-BR)

Submitted: December 12, 1996 Decided: December 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

O'Dell Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant

United States Attorney, Fenita Talore Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith, Nos. CR-93-3;

CA-96-7-7-BR (E.D.N.C. May 13, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion

for appointment of counsel and 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