alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 20,083

 18,638

 17,451

 17,707

 18,677

 19,783

 20,644

 20,569

 20,346

 19,814

 19,024

 17,418

 16,646

 13,798

 14,026

 12,888

 12,877

 15,170

 19,536

 20,590

 18,329

 20,340

 22,596

 21,334

 20,123

 19,259

 17,414

 17,037

 10,218

 10,564

 8,816

 7,452

 6,190

 5,915

 6,033

 6,481

 6,882

 6,502

 6,518

 6,279

 6,618

 5,750

 5,689

 5,878

 5,025

 4,540

 5,225

 5,577

 5,027

 6,202

 7,540

 6,934

 7,137

 7,939

 7,272

 7,413

 16,027

 14,744

 13,041

 11,618

 11,542

 12,078

 12,722

 13,554

 13,828

 13,455

 12,718

 12,588

 11,881

 10,572

 10,415

 9,286

 8,067

 8,467

 10,497

 12,517

 11,849

 13,318

 14,560

 14,308

 13,565

 13,860

 13,030

 12,501

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: March 8, 2021

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO BOTTOM IN SUISUN BAY
§ 10.540 When and how is compensation reduced or terminated? ( a ) Except as provided in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, where the evidence establishes that compensation should be either reduced or terminated, OWCP will provide the beneficiary with written notice of the proposed action and give him or her 30 days to submit relevant evidence or argument to support entitlement to continued payment of compensation.
( b ) Notice provided under this section will include a description of the reasons for the proposed action and a copy of the specific evidence upon which OWCP is basing its determination. Payment of compensation will continue until any evidence or argument submitted has been reviewed and an appropriate decision has been issued, or until 30 days have elapsed if no additional evidence or argument is submitted.
( c ) OWCP will not provide such written notice when the beneficiary has no reasonable basis to expect that payment of compensation will continue. For example, when a claim has been made for a specific period of time and that specific period expires, no written notice will be given.
( d ) Written notice will also not be given when a beneficiary dies, when OWCP either reduces or terminates compensation upon an employee's return to work, when OWCP terminates only medical benefits after a physician indicates that further medical treatment is not necessary or has ended, or when OWCP denies payment for a particular medical expense.
( e ) OWCP will also not provide such written notice when compensation is terminated, suspended or forfeited due to one of the following: A beneficiary's conviction for fraud in connection with a claim under the FECA; a beneficiary's incarceration based on any felony conviction; an employee's failure to report earnings from employment or self-employment; an employee's failure or refusal to either continue performing suitable work or to accept an offer of suitable work; or an employee's refusal to undergo or obstruction of a directed medical examination or treatment for substance abuse.
### §7165. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, Pub. L. 89–10, title IV, §4155, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title IV, §401, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1765, which related to transfer of school disciplinary records, was renumbered section 8537 of Pub. L. 89–10 by Pub. L. 114–95, title IV, §4001(a)(3), title VIII, §8001(a)(6), Dec. 10, 2015, 129 Stat. 1966, 2088, 2089, and transferred to section 7917 of this title.
---

Exhibit 99.9

March 27, 2012

CONSENT OF GORDON WATTS

United States Securities and Exchange Commission

Gentlemen:

In connection with Silver Wheaton Corp.s (the Company)
Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the Annual
Report), I, Gordon Watts, P.Eng., Senior Associate Mineral Economist of Watts,
Griffis and McOuat Limited, hereby consent to the inclusion in, or incorporation
by reference into, the Annual Report and the Companys Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-128128) and Form F-10 (File No. 333-167567), of the
following:

| | 1. | Resource and reserve estimates of the San Dimas Mines;
      and                                                                                                          
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | 2. | Technical report dated March 14, 2011, entitled
      Technical Report on the Tayoltita, Santa Rita and San Antonio Mines,
      Durango Mexico for Silver Wheaton Corp.

Yours truly,

/s/ Gordon Watts

Gordon Watts, P.Eng 
  Senior Associate Mineral Economist, 
  Watts, Griffis and McOuat Limited

---
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Elliott M. SUMLIN, Appellant.

No. 04-2882.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 1, 2006.

Decided: Aug. 3, 2006.

Larry Howard Ferrell, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Cape Girardeau, MO, for Appellee.

Elliott M. Sumlin, Forrest City, AR, pro se.

Stephen H. Gilmore, Donald V. Nangle, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Elliott M. Sumlin appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute more than 50 grams of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A) and 846. His counsel has filed a brief under *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), arguing that the district court abused its discretion by imposing a 135-month sentence and plainly erred under *United States v. Booker,*543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), by applying the Guidelines as mandatory.

We enforce the broad appeal waiver included in Sumlin’s plea agreement: the plea colloquy reflects that Sumlin understood and voluntarily accepted the terms of the plea agreement, including the waiver; this appeal falls within the scope of the waiver; and no injustice would result. *United States v. Andis,*333 F.3d 886, 889-92 (8th Cir.2003) (en banc) (court should enforce appeal waiver and dismiss appeal where it falls within scope of waiver, both plea agreement and waiver were entered into knowingly and voluntarily, and no miscarriage of justice would result; one important way district court can ensure plea agreement and appeal waiver are knowing and voluntary is to properly question defendant about decision to enter agreement and to waive right to appeal). The waiver also covered any issues under *Booker. See United States v. Fogg,*409 F.3d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir.2005) (unless expressly reserved, right to appellate relief under *Booker*is among rights waived by valid appeal waiver, even if parties did not anticipate *Blakely v. Washington,*542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), or Booker).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

1

. The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
EXHIBIT 11

                GRANITE STATE BANKSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
            Exhibit 11 Calculations of Basic Earnings Per Share
                      and Diluted Earnings Per Share
                 ($ In Thousands, Except Per Share Amounts)


                                    1997         1996         1995
                                  --------     --------     --------


Net earnings                     $  2,307     $  7,201       $  2,482

Adjustments                             0            0              0
                                  -------      -------        -------
Earnings applicable to
 common stock                    $  2,307     $  7,201       $  2,482
                                  =======      =======        =======

Weighted-average common
 shares outstanding-basic       5,444,350    5,323,480      5,411,409

Dilutive effect of stock
 options computed using
 the treasury stock method        306,912      291,074        267,402
                                ---------    ---------      ---------
Weighted-average common
 shares outstanding-diluted     5,751,262    5,614,554      5,678,811
                                =========    =========      =========

Basic Earnings Per Share        $    0.42    $    1.35      $    0.46
                                 ========     ========       ========
Diluted Earnings Per Share      $    0.40    $    1.28      $    0.44
                                 ========     ========       ========
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc.(the “Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31,2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, H. Lamar Cox, acting Chief Financial Officer of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuantto section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)           The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.

 
|   | /s/ H. Lamar Cox                       |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
|   | H. Lamar Cox                           |
|   | Acting Chief Financial  Officer        |
|   | Tennessee Commerce  Bancorp, Inc. |
|   | April 17, 2008                    |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                                         363,000
<SECURITIES>                                 3,117,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              102,195,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,566,000
<INVENTORY>                                 31,754,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,088,000
<PP&E>                                      48,187,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,254,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             178,072,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       84,434,000
<BONDS>                                    188,172,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      112,476,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       463,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               178,072,000
<SALES>                                    166,225,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           301,743,000
<CGS>                                      135,891,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              238,570,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            55,603,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          25,839,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (17,729,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   958,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,687,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (28,983,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (13.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-40579

Summary Calendar

J. RANDY STROUD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS; UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

COMPANY,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division

(4:99-CV-289)

November 27, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff J. Randy Stroud appeals from the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to Defendants Brotherhood of Locomotive

Engineers (BLE) and Union Pacific Railroad Co. (UP) on his claims

alleging deprivation of contractual and statutory rights in a
merger implementation agreement between BLE and UP, as well as

claims of a violation of a duty of fair representation by BLE and

wrongful interference with contractual relations by UP. The

district court granted summary judgment on alternative grounds.

First, it concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over

the claims because they fell within the mandatory arbitration

provision of Article I, Section 11 of the New York Dock Ry.-

Control-Brooklyn Eastern Dist. Terminal, 360 I.C.C. 60, 84-90

(1979) (“New York Dock”), aff’d sub nom. New York Dock Ry. v.

United States, 609 F.2d 83 (2nd Cir. 1979), conditions. Second,

the district court held that where New York Dock did not preclude

jurisdiction, it should decline jurisdiction under the primary

jurisdiction doctrine. Penny v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.,

906 F.2d 183, 187 (5th Cir. 1990).

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo, employing the same criteria used in that court. Rogers v.

International Marine Terminals, 87 F.3d 755, 758 (5th Cir. 1996).

Summary judgment should be granted where the record indicates no

genuine issue of material fact, and that the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

Here, we agree with the district court that the gravamen of

Plaintiff’s complaint is a dispute with the “interpretation,

application and enforcement” of the BLE-UP implementation

agreement. Thus, federal jurisdiction is precluded by the

mandatory arbitration provision of New York Dock Article I, Section
11. Spaulding v. United Transportation Union, 279 F.3d 901, 913

(10th Cir. 2002). To the extent that federal jurisdiction is not

preempted by the mandatory arbitration clause, we agree with the

district court that it should be declined because the Surface

Transportation Board has primary jurisdiction. Penny, 906 F.2d at

187.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
(No. 74-CC-54

#### Methodist Hospital of Central Illinois, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 15, 1974.*

Methodist Hospital of Central Illinois, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
Editorial Note on Part 70
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 70 appear by T.D. ATF-450, 66 FR 29022-29030, May 29, 2001.

§ 70.102 Coordination with title 11. ( a ) *Certain failures to pay tax.* No addition to the tax shall be made under section 6651 of the Internal Revenue Code for failure to make timely payment of tax with respect to a period during which a case is pending under Title 11 of the United States Code— ( 1 ) If such tax was incurred by the estate and the failure occurred pursuant to an order of the court finding probable insufficiency of funds of the estate to pay administrative expenses, or
( 2 ) If such tax was incurred by the debtor before the earlier of the order for relief or (in the involuntary case) the appointment of a trustee and ( i ) The petition was filed before the due date prescribed by law (including extensions) for filing a return of such tax, or
( ii ) The date for making the addition to the tax occurs on or after the day on which the petition was filed.
( b ) *Exception for collected taxes.* Paragraph (a) of this section shall not apply to any liability for an addition to the tax which arises from the failure to pay or deposit a tax withheld or collected from others and required to be paid to the United States.
(26 U.S.C. 6658)
[T.D. ATF-251, 52 FR 19314, May 22, 1987. Redesignated by T.D. ATF-301, 55 FR 47606, Nov. 14, 1990]
**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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael R. Sapp, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

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

 
|   | /s/ Michael R. Sapp                   |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   | Michael R. Sapp                       |
|   | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer  |
|   | Tennessee Commerce Bancorp, Inc. |
|   | April 18, 2011                        |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                                                    ------------





             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS.1350, AS ADOPTED
              PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


       In connection with the quarterly report of Spire Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") for the period ended March 31, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Roger
G. Little, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.





Dated:     May 16, 2005                     By: /s/ Roger G. Little
                                                -------------------------------
                                                Roger G. Little
                                                Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                                Executive Officer and President





       A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signatures that appear in typed form within the electronic version 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.
### §6052. Continuation of awards

#### (a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, from funds appropriated under subsection (b), the Secretary—

(1) shall continue to fund any multiyear grant or contract awarded under section 3141 and parts A and C of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as such provisions were in effect on the day preceding January 8, 2002), for the duration of that multiyear award in accordance with its terms; and

(2) may extend, on a year-to-year basis, any multiyear grant or contract awarded under an authority described in paragraph (1) that expires after January 8, 2002, but before the enactment of successor authority to this subchapter.1

#### (b) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal year such sums as may be necessary to carry out subsection (a).

(Pub. L. 103–227, title IX, §995, as added Pub. L. 107–110, title X, §1074, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 2090.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Section 3141 and parts A and C of title XIII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as such provisions were in effect on the day preceding January 8, 2002), referred to in subsec. (a)(1), are section 3141 and parts A and C of title XIII of Pub. L. 89–10, as added by Pub. L. 103–382, title I, §101, Oct. 20, 1994, 108 Stat. 3649, 3877, 3882. Section 3141 of the Act was classified to section 6861 of this title, prior to the general amendment of title III of Pub. L. 89–10 by Pub. L. 107–110, title III, §301, Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1689. Part A of title XIII of the Act was classified to part A (§8621 et seq.) of subchapter XIII of chapter 70 of this title, prior to its redesignation as part K of title IX of Pub. L. 103–227 by Pub. L. 107–110, title X, §1021(a), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1987, and transfer to part G (§6053 et seq.) of this subchapter. Part C of title XIII of the Act was classified to part C (§8671 et seq.) of subchapter XIII of chapter 70 of this title, prior to its redesignation as part M of title IX of Pub. L. 103–227 by Pub. L. 107–110, title X, §1023(a), Jan. 8, 2002, 115 Stat. 1987, and transfer to part I (§6055 et seq.) of this subchapter.

This subchapter, referred to in subsec. (a)(2), was in the original "this Act" and has been translated as reading "this title" to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 8, 2002, except with respect to certain noncompetitive programs and competitive programs, see section 5 of Pub. L. 107–110, set out as a note under section 6301 of this title.

1 See References in Text note below.
Exhibit 4.1
 Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and
Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement (the Amendment)
 Exhibit A
       Signature Page Follows




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  COMPANY:
 BAKERS FOOTWEAR GROUP, INC.By:
    /s/ Peter A. EdisonName:
    Peter A. EdisonTitle:
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  INVESTOR:
 LINN H. BEALKE REVOCABLE TRUSTBy:
    /s/ Linn H. BealkeName:
    Linn H. BealkeTitle:
    Trustee




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  INVESTOR:
  By:
    /s/ Bernard EdisonName:Title:
    Trustee




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  INVESTOR:
 By:
    /s/ Julian I. EdisonName:
    Julian I. Edison




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  INVESTOR:
  By:
    /s/ Louis N. GoldringName:
    Louis N. GoldringTitle:
    Trustee




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  INVESTOR:
 By:
    /s/ Scott C. SchnuckName:
    Scott C. Schnuck




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  INVESTOR:
  By:
    /s/ Richard D. BaurName:
    Richard D. BaurTitle:
    Trustee




---



##### 



Signature Page to Second Amendment to Subordinated Convertible Debentures and  Subordinated Convertible Debenture Purchase Agreement
  INVESTOR:
  By:
    /s/ Scott D. FeslerName:
    Scott D. FeslerTitle:
    Manager




---



##### 



Exhibit A