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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         598,772
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               696,884
<PP&E>                                       7,483,501
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,166,447
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,743,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          517,853
<BONDS>                                      6,531,848
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       105,260
<OTHER-SE>                                     453,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,743,614
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,856,218
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  479,963
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               253,146
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             607,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                515,390
<INCOME-TAX>                                   208,956
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            306,434
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   306,434
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.97
        

</TABLE>
### §557. Employees of Forest Service; subsistence furnished to; personal equipment; supplies, and medical attention

The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to furnish subsistence to employees of the Forest Service, to purchase personal equipment and supplies for them, and to make deductions therefor from moneys appropriated for salary payments or otherwise due such employees. He is also authorized, in his discretion, to provide out of moneys appropriated for the general expenses of the Forest Service medical attention for employees of the Forest Service located at isolated situations, including the moving of such employees to hospitals or other places where medical assistance is available, and in case of death to remove the bodies of deceased employees to the nearest place where they can be prepared for shipment or for burial: Provided, That when a transient without permanent residence, or any other person while away from his place of residence, is temporarily employed by the Forest Service and while so employed becomes disabled because of injury or illness not attributable to official work, he may be provided hospitalization and other necessary medical care, subsistence, and lodging for a period of not to exceed fifteen days during such disability, the cost thereof to be payable from any funds available to the Forest Service applicable to the work for which such person is employed.

(Mar. 3, 1925, ch. 457, §§4, 6, 43 Stat. 1133; Apr. 24, 1950, ch. 97, §15, 64 Stat. 86.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1950—Act Apr. 24, 1950, inserted proviso to provide medical care for temporary employees.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

BEACHFRONT ESCAPES, LLC, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-2173

)

TOWN OF FORT MYERS BEACH, )

FLORIDA; JOSEPH B. ORLANDINI; )

and LYLE L. KLINE, TRUSTEE, , )

)

Appellees. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed December 21, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee 

County; Geoffrey H. Gentile, Judge.

Matthew D. Uhle of Law Office of Matthew 

D. Uhle, LLC, Fort Myers, for Appellant.

Josh S. Turner and Jack N. Peterson, Fort 

Myers, for Appellee Town of Fort Myers 

Beach, Florida.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 
- 2 -

KHOUZAM and BADALAMENTI, JJ., and CASE, JAMES R., ASSOCIATE SENIOR 

JUDGE, Concur.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 0679 Lower Tribunal No. CF18

- 00 632 0

- XX

_____________________________ J OSE B ERMUDEZ , Appellant
,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Polk County

. Lori A. Winstead , Judge.
August 13, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. TRAVER, C

. J. , and WHITE and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Jose Bermudez, Chipley, pro se

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Cerese Crawford Taylor , Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7993

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LONNIE GLEN SCHMIDT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert D. Potter, Senior

District Judge. (CR-89-114-C, CA-95-338-3-P)

Submitted: April 15, 1996 Decided: May 2, 1996

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lonnie Glen Schmidt, Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Wayne Miller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the

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

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v.

Schmidt, Nos. CR-89-114-C; CA-95-338-3-P (W.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 1995).

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
§ 222.68 How does the Secretary determine whether a fiscally independent local educational agency meets the applicable tax rate requirement? ( a ) To determine whether a fiscally independent LEA, as defined in § 222.2(c), meets the applicable tax rate requirement in §§ 222.63(b)(3), 222.63(c)(2), and 222.64(a)(3), the Secretary compares the LEA's local real property tax rate for current expenditure purposes, as defined in § 222.2(c) (referred to in this part as “tax rate” or “tax rates”), with the tax rates of its generally comparable LEAs.
( b ) For purposes of this section, the Secretary uses— ( 1 ) The actual tax rate if all the real property in the LEA and its generally comparable LEAs is assessed at the same percentage of true value; or
( 2 ) Tax rates computed under §§ 222.69-222.71.
( c ) The Secretary determines that an LEA described in §§ 222.63(b), 222.63(c), or 222.64(a) meets the applicable tax rate requirement if— ( 1 ) The LEA's tax rate is equal to at least 95 percent (or 125 percent under 222.63(c)) of the average tax rate of its generally comparable LEAs;
( 2 ) Each of the LEA's tax rates for each classification of real property is equal to at least 95 percent (or 125 percent under 222.63(c)) of each of the average tax rates of its generally comparable LEAs for the same classification of property;
( 3 ) The LEA taxes all of its real property at the maximum rates allowed by the State, if those maximum rates apply uniformly to all LEAs in the State and the State does not permit any rates higher than the maximum; or
( 4 ) The LEA has no taxable real property.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(b)(2))
No. 19,771.

#### The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission, et al., *v.*Continental Air Lines, Inc.

(383 P. [2d] 313)

Decided June 25, 1963.

Mr. Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, Mr. Frank E. Hickey, Deputy, Mr. Richard W. Bangert, Assistant, for plaintiff in error The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission.

Messrs. Holland & Hart, Mr. Patrick M. Westfeldt, Mr. William C. McClearn, Mr. Warren L. Tomlinson, for defendant in error.

*En Banc.*

Per Curiam.

In the opinion of this court announced February 13, 1962, in the above entitled action, it was held that the state of Colorado did not have the power to legislate concerning racial discrimination by employers engaged in interstate commerce.

On review by the Supreme Court of the United States this judgment was reversed. The remittitur from that *525court addressed, “To the Honorable the Judges of the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado” contains the following pertinent language:

“ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it was ordered and adjudged on April 22, 1963, by this Court that the judgment of the said Supreme Court in these causes be reversed with costs, and that these causes be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.”

The parties to the action differ as to the language in which the remand from this court to the district court should be couched. The sole issue on which this court, or the district court of the City and County of Denver, has ruled involved the question of jurisdiction of the state of Colorado to legislate with reference to racial discrimination by employers in interstate commerce. It has now been held that the state of Colorado has jurisdiction. It is the function of this court to review judgments of the trial courts. Issues raised by the motions of the parties with reference to our mandate have not been determined by the trial court.

The cause is remanded to the district court of the City and County of Denver for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States. We further direct that the matter be determined with all convenient speed consistent with due process.
2/4/2015

OFFICIAL BUSIN

STATE ©F TE3£^

PENALTY FOK

PRIVATE'USE

NOWLAND, JOSHUA GEORGE

This is to advise that your application forwrit of habeas corpus has been dismissed.

Conviction not final; mandate not issuecf.at time application filed in trial court. See

Ex parte Johnson, 12 S.W.3d 472 (Tex Cnm App 2000).

Abel Acosta, Clerk

JOSHUA GEORGE NOWLAND

TDC# 1872681

•I3B WM^l'I'llKI'li'l'l'

'•j'-V-i-l

FEB09 2015

tifCL'fflWffimPFR0M 2,^R?827,53041-01

$. TF
VA/DOD PROGRAM OFFICE

BENEFITS DELIVERY AT DISCHARGE 

Disabilities determined by VA to be related to your military service can lead to monthly non-taxable compensation, enrollment in the 

VA health care system, a 10-point hiring preference for federal employment and other important benefits. Ask your VA 

representative or Veterans Service Organization representative about Disability Compensation, Pension, Health Care, Caregiver

Program, Career Services, Educational Assistance, Home Loan Guaranty, Insurance and/or Dependents and Survivors’ Benefits.

BENEFITS DELIVERY AT DISCHARGE (BDD)

If you are separating from active duty within the next 60 to 180 days, BDD can help you receive VA 

disability benefits sooner.

WHAT IS BENEFITS DELIVERY AT DISCHARGE?

The Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD) Program allows a servicemember to apply for disability 

compensation benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) prior to retirement or 

separation from military service.

HOW CAN BDD HELP ME?

BDD is offered to accelerate receipt of VA disability benefits, with a goal of providing benefits within 

60 days after release or discharge from active duty. BDD allows a servicemember with at least 60 

days, but not more than 180 days, remaining on active duty to file a VA disability claim prior to

separation. BDD requires a minimum of 60 days to allow sufficient time to complete the medical 

examination process (which may involve multiple specialty clinics) prior to separation from service.

HOW DO I GET STARTED?

Submit VA Form 21-526, or VA Form 21-526e, Veteran’s Application for Compensation and/or 

Pension, and submit it to the nearest VA Regional Office. You can also complete your application online using Veterans Online Application (VONAPP). For the VA Regional Office nearest you, call the 

VA toll free number at 1-800-827-1000. Submit your service treatment records. Either your original 

records or copies are acceptable. Attend and complete all phases of your VA/DoD medical separation 

examination process.

WHAT ELSE SHOULD I KNOW?

BDD is a time-sensitive process. To receive your VA disability benefits within the goal of 60 days 

following separation, you must submit your claim 60 to 180 days prior to your release or retirement 

from active duty. This time is needed to complete your medical examinations before you leave your 

point of separation. If you are closer than 60 days to separation from service, you can submit a Quick 

Start claim. 
VA/DOD Program Office – February 2015 

HOW CAN I GET MORE INFORMATION?

If you are on a military installation, contact your local Transition Assistance Office or ACAP Center 

(Army only) to schedule appointments to attend VA benefits briefings and learn how to initiate your 

claim. You can also call the VA toll-free number, 1-800-827-1000. Be sure to visit Military One 

Source for 24/7 access to helpful pre-separation and transition guides; employment, education, and 

relocation information, benefits checklist; and more. 

For More Information Visit Our BDD website.
#### § 250.2 Removal authorization.

If the district director grants the application he shall issue an authorization for the alien's removal on Form I-202. Upon issuance of the authorization, or as soon thereafter as practicable, the alien may be removed from the United States at government expense.

[22 FR 9802, Dec. 6, 1957]
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 Annual Report of Hawkins, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the
period ended March 29, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Hawkins, Chief Executive
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:

(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/ John R.
 Hawkins                                    | 
|                                                        | 
|John R.
 Hawkins
 Chief Executive Officer
 June 5, 2009

42

---
#### Eleanor M. Hussey v. Laura R. Fitch.

Application denied, with ten dollars costs. Order signed. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.
### §470f. Repealed. Pub. L. 113–287, §7, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3272

Section, Pub. L. 89–665, title I, §106, Oct. 15, 1966, 80 Stat. 917; Pub. L. 94–422, title II, §201(3), Sept. 28, 1976, 90 Stat. 1320, related to effect of Federal undertakings upon property listed in National Register and comment by Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. See section 306108 of Title 54, National Park Service and Related Programs.
EXHIBIT 32

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE 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 Annual Report of Herley Industries,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended July 30, 2006, as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Myron Levy, Chairman
of the  Board  and Chief  Executive  Officer  of the  Company,  hereby  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)  Such 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 such Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.


                                      Date:   October 30, 2006

                                      By:     /S/  Myron Levy
                                              -------------------------
                                      Name:   Myron Levy
                                      Title:  Chairman of the Board and
                                              Chief Executive Officer


                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL 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 Annual Report of Herley Industries,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the year ended July 30, 2006, as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Kevin J.  Purcell,
Chief Financial  Officer of the Company,  hereby 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)  Such 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 such Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                      Date:   October 30, 2006

                                      By:     /S/  Kevin J. Purcell
                                              -------------------------
                                      Name:   Kevin J. Purcell
                                      Title:  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. SS. 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 Markland Technologies,
Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended DECEMBER 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned chief executive officer and chief financial officer of the Company,
certify, to their best knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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/ ROBERT TARINI                                  /S/ GINO M. PEREIRA
----------------------------                       ----------------------------
ROBERT TARINI                                      GINO M. PEREIRA
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                            CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

DATE:  FEBRUARY 15, 2005                           DATE:  FEBRUARY 15, 2005
Demonstrative Exhibit 1 – Increase in Value of Contura 

Shares Owned by Whitebox

Case 15-33896-KRH Doc 4124-10 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 07/18/18 12:57:40 Desc

 Exhibit(s) - Demonstrative Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 2
Increase in Value of Contura Shares Owned by Whitebox, and Increase in Value of Whitebox F

Row

Whitebox Fund Families Owning Stock in Contura1

Number of Shares Owned by Fund1

Whitebox Funds Held by McKinsey Master Retirement Trust (MIO)2

EstimShareMcKin

1 Whitebox Asymmetric Partners, LP 592,911 N/A

2 Whitebox Relative Value Partners, LP 183,600 N/A

3 Whitebox Credit Partners, LP 461,645 Whitebox Credit Arbitrage Fund, Ltd. Class C-3-C-11 

4 Whitebox GT Fund, LP 236,730 N/A

5 Whitebox Multi-Strategy Partners, LP 1,371,335 N/A

Whitebox Pandora Select, Ltd Class A Series C-13-01-16a 

Whitebox Pandora Select, Ltd Class A Series C-13-11-15a 

Whitebox Pandora Select, Ltd Class A Series C-13-12-15a 

Whitebox Pandora Select, Ltd Class A Series C-13-YE-10a 

7 Whitebox Institutional Partners, LP 104,698 N/A

Total 3,381,468 

Row Description As of 

8 Contura Energy, Inc. price per share4

$ 

9 Contura Energy, Inc. price per share4

$ 

10 Number of Contura Energy, Inc. shares owned by Whitebox Funds5 

Estimated Value of Contura Energy, Inc. shares owned by Whitebox Funds 

Increase in Estimated Value from 8/18/2016 

1 Per preliminary prospectus for 6 million shares of Contura Energy, Inc. common stock dated July 31, 2017. Whitebox fund fami

2 Per 2016 McKinsey Master Retirement Trust Department of Labor Form 5500, dated December 31, 2016.

4 Obtained from Capital IQ. Capital IQ had historical stock price data for Contura Energy, Inc. dated back through August 18, 2015 Number of shares beneficially owned by Whitebox Funds prior to the public offering (which did not occur) per the preliminary pro

the value of Contura Energy, Inc. shares owned by Whitebox Funds as of 8/18/2016, 12/20/2016 and 12/30/2016 using this numb

6 Pandora Select Partners, LP 430,549 

 Estimated Value of Contura Energy, Inc. Stock Owned by Wh

3 The estimated number of shares held by McKinsey was calculated by dividing the cost of each Whitebox Fund held by McKinse

price per share as of 8/18/2016.

Page 1 of 1 

Case 15-33896-KRH Doc 4124-10 Filed 07/18/18 Entered 0

 Exhibit(s) - Demonstrative Exhibit 1 Page 2