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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
CONTAINED IN THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             570
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,136
<ALLOWANCES>                                       305
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,622
<PP&E>                                          63,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  23,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,870
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,861
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             4
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,870
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                97,301
<CGS>                                           78,257
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,317
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,341)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,148
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,177
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,853
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,853
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.26


</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Alliance Laundry Systems LLC, Alliance Laundry Corporation and
Alliance Laundry Holdings LLC (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bruce P. Rounds, Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, 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 the Companies.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|/s/ BRUCE P. ROUNDS                    
|Vice President, Chief Financial Officer

November 5, 2007
# C_2010288EN.01004501.xml

| 23.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 288/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 288/45

---

Action brought on 10 August 2010 — Fraas v OHIM (Black, grey, beige and dark red coloured checked pattern)

(Case T-329/10)

()

(2010/C 288/86)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: V. Fraas GmbH (Helmbrechts-Wüstenselbitz, Germany) (represented by G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 June 2010 in Case R 191/2010-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 June 2010 in Case R 191/2010-4;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark representing a black, grey, beige and dark red coloured checked pattern, for goods in Classes 18, 24 and 25.

Decision of the Examiner: Registration was refused.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since the Community trade mark concerned does have distinctive character, and infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal did not address the applicant's extensive factual and legal submissions.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6981

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

TERRY BARNES,

Defendant - Appellant.

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

Judge. (CR-92-58, CA-97-284-5-BR)

Submitted: September 25, 1997 Decided: October 9, 1997

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., 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).
* Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel is hereby

denied.

2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying

without prejudice his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West

1994 & Supp. 1997) and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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. Barnes, Nos. CR-92-58; CA-97-284-5-BR

(E.D.N.C. June 12, 1997).* 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
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 137

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the increase in

tax on social security benefits.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. KYL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal

the increase in tax on social security benefits.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF TAX INCREASE ON SOCIAL SECU4 RITY BENEFITS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 13215 of the Revenue

6 Reconciliation Act of 1993 is hereby repealed, and the In7 ternal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and adminis8 tered as if such section (and the amendments made there9 by) had not been enacted.

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE; WAIVER RULE.—
2

•S 137 IS

1 (1) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by

2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning

3 after December 31, 1993.

4 (2) WAIVER OF LIMITATIONS.—If refund or

5 credit of any overpayment of tax resulting from the

6 application of the repeal made by this section is pre7 vented at any time before the close of the 1-year pe8 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this

9 Act by the operation of any law or rule of law (in10 cluding res judicata), such refund or credit may nev11 ertheless be made or allowed if claim therefor is filed

12 before the close of such period.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1942

MICHAEL C. WORSHAM,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DISCOUNT POWER, INC.,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00008-RDB)

Submitted: March 16, 2023 Decided: March 20, 2023

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Craig Worsham, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Adam Scotti, GORDON REES 

SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1942 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael C. Worsham appeals from the district court’s orders entering judgment in 

favor of Discount Power, Inc. (“Discount Power”), in his action alleging violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227, and the Maryland Telephone 

Consumer Protection Act, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-3201 to 14-3202. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Worsham’s motion 

to direct the district court to transmit evidence to this court, and we affirm for the reasons 

stated by the district court. Worsham v. Disc. Power, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-00008-RDB 

(D. Md. Dec. 1, 2021; Aug. 4, 2022). We deny Worsham’s motion for 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

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1942 Doc: 32 Filed: 03/20/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
### §1795g. Depositories, custodians, and fiscal agents

The Federal Reserve Banks are authorized to act as depositories, custodians and/or fiscal agents for the Central Liquidity Facility in the general performance of its powers conferred by this subchapter. Each Federal Reserve Bank when designated by the Board as fiscal agent for the Central Liquidity Facility, shall be entitled to be reimbursed for all expenses incurred as such fiscal agent.

(June 26, 1934, ch. 750, title III, formerly subch. III, §308, as added and amended Pub. L. 95–630, title V, §502(b), title XVIII, §1802, Nov. 10, 1978, 92 Stat. 3681, 3723; Pub. L. 96–221, title III, §309(a)(4), (b)(1), (2), Mar. 31, 1980, 94 Stat. 149.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 309(b)(1) of Pub. L. 96–221 redesignated subch. III as title III of act June 26, 1934, ch. 750, cited as a credit to this section.

#### Amendments

1980—Pub. L. 96–221, §309(a)(4), (b)(2), substituted "Board" for "Administrator", such change having been made previously by Pub. L. 95–630, and "title" for "subchapter", which for purposes of codification has been editorially translated as "subchapter", thereby requiring no further change in text.

1978—Pub. L. 95–630, §502(b), substituted "Board" for "Administrator".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1978 Amendment

Amendment effective on expiration of 120 days after Nov. 10, 1978, and transitional provisions, see section 509 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 1752 of this title.

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 1, 1979, see section 1806 of Pub. L. 95–630, set out as a note under section 1795 of this title.
Together, America Prospers

Multifamily Housing Preservation & 

Revitalization Demonstration

What does this 

program do?

USDA Rural Development 

preserves and revitalizes 

the physical and financial 

health of existing Multifamily 

Housing Direct and Farm Labor 

Housing properties. Available 

restructuring tools include the 

deferral of current debt, soft 

second mortgages, zero-interest 

loans, and grants.

Available Restructuring Tools

Debt Deferral

Scheduled principal and interest 

payments on eligible loans may 

be deferred up to 20 years.

Soft Second Loans

A 1 percent interest loan, with 

accrued interest and principal 

deferred to a final balloon payment.

Zero Interest Loans

Loans underwritten at zero 

percent interest, with principal 

repayment only.

Grants

Provided to nonprofit entities to 

address health and safety issues.

Who is eligible to apply?

• Current owners of Multifamily 

Housing Direct or Farm Labor 

Housing properties.

• Prospective buyers who want to 

assume ownership of a currently 

eligible property in accordance 

with 7 CFR 3560.55 (available at 

this link: https://go.usa.gov/xMfCp), 

or 7 CFR 3560.555 (available at this 

link: https://go.usa.gov/xMfCG).

Participant Requirements

• Borrowers must continue to provide 

affordable rental housing for 20 years, 

or the remaining term of any USDA 

loan, whichever is later.

• A Capital Needs Assessment 

performed by a third-party is 

required to identify project needs.

Application Process

• Directions for the application 

process are included in a Notice 

of Solicitation Availability (NOSA) 

published in the Federal Register.

• Applications are first screened for 

eligibility, and applicants are then 

notified of next steps.

What governs this program?

Title V of the Housing Act of 

1949, available at this link: 

https://go.usa.gov/xMwFR

For More Information

Please contact Multifamily Housing 

toll-free at 800-292-8293, or visit 

https://www.rd.usda.gov/multifamily

and scroll to the bottom of the page 

to find your processing and review 

branch, based on the state in which 

your project is located.

NOTE: Because citations and other information may be subject to change, 

please always consult the program instructions listed in the section above titled 

“What Governs This Program?” You may also contact our Multifamily Housing staff

for assistance. You will find additional forms, resources, and program information at 

rd.usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

December 2021
1

Filed 3/3/15 Salazar v. Superior Court CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication 

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

IBIS SALAZAR,

Petitioner,

v.

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY,

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

E062264

(Super.Ct.No. RIC1409844)

OPINION

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for writ of mandate. John W. Vineyard, 

Judge. Petition granted. 

La Cues Law Group, Jerry La Cues and Brett La Cues, for Petitioner.

No appearance for Respondent.

No appearance for Real Party in Interest
2

The law being clear and no response having been received from respondent and/or 

real party in interest, the petition is granted. 

DISCUSSION

Although criminal contempt is available as a remedy where such conduct tends to 

impede, embarrass, or obstruct the court (In re Nolan W. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1217), the 

facts of contempt must be clearly established and may not be determined with the aid of 

information not in the record. (Boysaw v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 215; In re 

Littlefield (1993) 5 Cal.4th 122.) 

Here, the witness’s testimony was ambiguous and readily susceptible to the 

construction that it expressed confusion over the form of the question rather than a 

specific intent to frustrate the orders of the court. Even if another witness had made a 

similar response, there is nothing in the record to show that petitioner was aware of that 

response or the court’s reaction to it. We also note that the trial court was careful to 

exonerate petitioner’s counsel from any suspicion of coaching the witness into an 

improper response. It seems highly unlikely that the witness would have deliberately 

attempted on her own to frame a response that might suggest to the jury that other defects 

existed while trying to avoid an outright violation of the court’s order. 

Hence, we conclude that the evidence supports no more than a finding that the 

witness inadvertently gave a response that arguably violated the court’s order. The harsh 

remedy of contempt was not available in these circumstances.
3

DISPOSITION

Let a peremptory writ issue, directing the Superior Court of Riverside County to 

vacate its order of contempt against petitioner. 

Petitioner is directed to prepare and have the peremptory writ of mandate issued, 

copies served, and the original filed with the clerk of this court, together with proof of 

service on all parties.

The previously ordered stay, having served its purpose, is LIFTED.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER

J.

We concur:

HOLLENHORST

Acting P. J.

CODRINGTON

J.
* 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. 96-10008 (Summary Calendar)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

SON NGO HUYNH,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas
(USDC No. 3:95-CR-225-T)

- - - - - - - - - - August 26, 1996 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Son Ngo Huynh appeals from the sentence imposed by the

district court following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy

to utter and possess counterfeit securities. Huynh argues that the

district court erred by increasing his offense level by two

pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c) for his role in the offense and, in

the alternative, that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

bec ause his attorney failed to notice and understand the2

significance of an error in the factual resume indicating that

Huynh had recruited three other participants. In his plea

agreement, however, Huynh waived his right to appeal his sentence.

See United States v. Portillo , 18 F.3d 290, 293 (5th Cir.), cert.

denied

, 115 S. Ct. 244 (1994). Further, "[t]he general rule in

this circuit is that a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel

cannot be resol ved on direct appeal when the claim has not been

raised before the district court sinc e no opportunity existed to

develop the record on the merits of the allegations." U nited

States v. Higdon

, 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987), cert.

denied

, 484 U.S. 1075 (1988). Because the record was not fully

developed on this issue, the court declines to address the issue on

direct appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is

affirmed.

AFFIRMED.
#### § 25.3 Admission to the GAO building.

A person may be admitted to the GAO Building after presentation of personal identification to conduct lawful business with GAO, its employees, or other tenants of the GAO Building and for any other purposes authorized by the Comptroller General or his designee. During normal working hours, the GAO Building shall be open to the public unless specific circumstances require it to be closed to the public to ensure the orderly conduct of government business. Outside of normal working hours, the GAO Building shall be closed to the public unless the Comptroller General or his designee has approved the after-normal-working-hours use of the Building or portions thereof. When the Building, or a portion thereof, is closed to the public, admission will be restricted to authorized persons who shall register upon entry and exit, and shall, when requested, display government or other identifying credentials to the guards, security staff, or other authorized individuals. Failure to comply with such a request is a violation of these regulations.
### SUBCHAPTER I—FINDINGS, PURPOSE, AND POLICY; DEFINITIONS
**EXHIBIT
      4**











**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**




We
      hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated May 16, 2006 (except as
      to
      note 21, which is as of May 19, 2006), relating to the consolidated balance
      sheets of FirstService Corporation (the “Company”) as at March 31, 2006 and 2005
      and the consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders’ equity and cash flows
      for each year in the three-year period ended March 31, 2006, appearing in this
      Annual Report on Form 40-F of the Company for the year ended March 31, 2006.








*PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP*


Chartered
      Accountants





Toronto,
      Canada


May
      26,
      2006
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

NEIL ANDREW NEIDIG,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 210 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Unpublished Memorandum and Order

of the Superior Court at No. 2135 MDA

2012 filed January 3, 2014, affirming the

Judgment of Sentence of the

Northumberland County Court of Common

Pleas at Nos. CP-49-CR-0000295-2012

and CP-49-CR-0000756-2011 filed

October 18, 2012

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is VACATED, and the matter is

REMANDED to the Superior Court to consider the implications of Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c), as

outlined in the dissenting statement by Judge Fitzgerald. See Pa.R.A.P. 1925(c)(3)

(where an “appellate court is convinced that counsel has been per se ineffective, the

appellate court shall remand for the filing of a Statement nunc pro tunc and for the

preparation and filing of an opinion by the judge.”). 

DECIDED: August 19, 2014
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-6918

WILLIAM J. FOY, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:05-cv-00873-CMH) Submitted: November 17, 2006 Decided: December 13, 2006 Before MICHAEL and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William J. Foy, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: William J. Foy seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Foy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. 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