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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0001046002
<NAME> ALLIANCE BANCORP OF NEW ENGLAND, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           6,652
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               5
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                14,760
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     43,729
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,949
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            20,021
<LOANS>                                        157,450
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 247,129
<DEPOSITS>                                     221,733
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                854
<LONG-TERM>                                      3,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      18,787
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 247,129
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 12,138
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,280
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   293
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,711
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,487
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,751
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,960
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      829
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 961
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  6,411
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,681
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,681
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,017
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.80
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,133
<LOANS-PAST>                                        86
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   502
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  1,500
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 2,850
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      768
<RECOVERIES>                                        89
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            650
        



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7695
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MANNIX DEAN DANIELS, 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-92-284-P, CA-96-116-3-P) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mannix Dean Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying his third motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) motion. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Appellant's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Daniels , Nos. CR-92-284-P; CA-96-116-3-P (W.D.N.C. Sept. 23, 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
EXHIBIT 32
  Certification Pursuant to
 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
 as Adopted Pursuant to
 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 
 This certification is not deemed filed pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not constitute a part of the Annual Report of Hypercom Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”).
 
 In connection with the Report, we, Philippe Tartavull, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Thomas B. Sabol, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, respectively, 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: March 12, 2010
By:
/s/ Philippe TartavullPhilippe TartavullChief Executive OfficerDated: March 12, 2010
By:
/s/ Thomas B. SabolThomas B. SabolChief Financial Officer
### §121. State statutes as operative on termination of transportation; original packages

All fermented, distilled, or other intoxicating liquors or liquids transported into any State or Territory or remaining therein for use, consumption, sale, or storage therein, shall upon arrival in such State or Territory be subject to the operation and effect of the laws of such State or Territory enacted in the exercise of its police powers, to the same extent and in the same manner as though such liquids or liquors had been produced in such State or Territory, and shall not be exempt therefrom by reason of being introduced therein in original packages or otherwise.

(Aug. 8, 1890, ch. 728, 26 Stat. 313.)

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

#### Short Title

Act Aug. 8, 1890, is popularly known as the "Wilson Act" or the "Original Packages Act".
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 32.1


           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
                     ACT OF 2002 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In conjunction with the Annual Report of Alliance Bancorp of New England, Inc.,
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joseph H. Rossi, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




                                             /s/ Joseph H. Rossi
                                             -------------------
                                             Joseph H. Rossi
                                             President/Chief Executive Officer
                                             March 23, 2004





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

The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission and shall not be considered filed as part of the Report.
1

TEXT FOR EMAIL TO BORROWERS:

Dear Student:

Our records show that you received a student loan for the 2007-2008 academic year under the 

Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program. As part of our evaluation of the FFEL 

Program, we need your assistance by asking you to respond to a few questions related to your 

choice of FFEL bank or other lender. 

Click on the link below to access the brief, five questions, survey. Please respond as soon as you 

can but no later than March 15, 20XX.

Your responses to this survey will have no impact on your FFEL Program loan or on your 

eligibility for future federal student aid. If you have any concerns regarding the legitimacy of 

this request you can link to www.ifap.ed.gov/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, where you will see a letter 

from the U.S. Department of Education announcing this survey effort or you can call the U.S. 

Department of Education’s Federal Student Aid Information Center at 1-800-4FEDAID (1-800-

433-3243).

We thank you very much for your assistance in this important activity.

Sincerely, 

U.S. Department of Education

Federal Student Aid

TEXT FOR SURVEY

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this brief survey to help us determine whether you were 

provided with a choice of lender for your FFEL student loan. Your responses to this survey will 

have no impact on your FFEL Program loan or on your eligibility for future federal student aid. 

1. Did you receive a FFEL Stafford Loan for all or part of the 2007-2008 school year?

___Yes ___No If NO, skip Questions 2 through 4 and go to Question 5.

2. Was the 2007-2008 Stafford Loan the first FFEL loan you have received for attendance at any school? 

___Yes ___No If NO, skip Questions 3 and 4 and go to Question 5.

 3. Did your school let you know that you had a choice of FFEL lenders?

___Yes ___ No

 4. Did your school prevent you from using the lender you wanted to use?

___Yes ___ No If YES, please provide detail below in Question 5.

5. You may provide additional information or comments about your choice of FFEL lender in the box below.

Thank you for your participation in this important project.

U.S. Department of Education

Federal Student Aid
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 559 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                        Calendar No. 52
117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 559

                          [Report No. 117-18]

   To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 3, 2021

Mr. Merkley (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                             April 28, 2021

               Reported by Mr. Schatz, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. GRAND RONDE RESERVATION ACT AMENDMENT.

    Section 1(d) of Public Law 100-425 (commonly known as the ``Grand 
Ronde Reservation Act'') (102 Stat. 1594) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ``lands within the State 
        of Oregon'' and inserting ``the 84 acres known as the Thompson 
        Strip'';
            (2) by redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph (3); and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
            ``(2) Gaming prohibition.--Any real property obtained by 
        the Tribes as part of a land claim settlement approved by the 
        United States shall not be eligible, or used, for any class II 
        gaming or class III gaming under the Indian Gaming Regulatory 
        Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.) (as those terms are defined in 
        section 4 of that Act (25 U.S.C. 2703)).''.

SEC. 2. TREATY RIGHTS OF FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED TRIBES.

    Nothing in this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, shall be 
construed to enlarge, confirm, adjudicate, affect, or modify any treaty 
right of an Indian Tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 5304)).
                                                        Calendar No. 52

117th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 559

                          [Report No. 117-18]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To amend the Grand Ronde Reservation Act, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             April 28, 2021

                       Reported without amendment
```
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19406

Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-99-90 October 18, 1999

Contact: Diane Screnci (610/337-5330) FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan (610/337-5331)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC TO MEET WITH NIAGARA MOHAWK TO DISCUSS PERFORMANCE

AT NINE MILE POINT NUCLEAR PLANTS

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with

representatives of the Nine Mile Point nuclear power plant on

Friday, October 22, to discuss the results of the agency's latest

Plant Performance Review for the facility. Niagara Mohawk Power

Company operates the two-unit site, which is located in Scriba,

NY.

Issuance of the reviews was announced in NRC news release

I-99-87 on October 13. The Plant Performance Review letter can be

found on the agency's Internet web site at:

www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/220ppr2.htm.

The meeting, which will be open to the public, will begin at

1 p.m. in the Nine Mile Point Nuclear Training Center in Scriba,

NY. At its conclusion, NRC staff will be available to answer

questions from interested observers and to meet with state and

local officials.

#
### §123e. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 123e was editorially reclassified as section 6577 of this title.
EX-4.1





 Exhibit 4.1 
  





 
 DATE OF ISSUE CERTIFICATE NUMBER RUN/TFR. NO. REGISTER NUMBER OF SHARE(S)    Trip.com GroupTM jMl~&m Trip.com
Group Limited flfi-·fl~*~ (incorporated in the Cayman islands with limited liability) SHARE CERTIFICATE HONG KONG SHARE REGISTER THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE UNDERMENTIONED PERSON(S) IS/ARE THE REGISTERED HOLDER(S) OF FULLY PAID ORDINARY
SHARE(S) OF NOMINAL VALUE US$0.00125 PER SHARE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF TRIP. COM GROUP LIMITED (THE “COMPANY”) AS DETAILED BELOW SUBJECT TO THE MEMORANDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE COMPANY. CODE: NUMBER OF SHARE(S): L _j GIVEN
UNDER THE SECURITIES SEAL OF THE COMPANY ON THE DATE OF ISSUE STATED ABOVE.    DIRECTOR NO TRANSFER OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PORTION OF THE ABOVE SHARE(S) CAN BE REGISTERED UNLESS ACCOMPANIED BY THIS SHARE CERTIFICATE. HONG KONG SHARE
REGISTRAR: COMPUTERS HARE HONG KONG INVESTOR SERVICES LIMITED, SHOPS 1712-1716, 17TH FLOOR , HOPEWELL CENTRE , 183 QUEEN’S ROAD EAST, WANCHAI, HONG KONG.
#### In the Matter of the Application of Dudley M. Day for Admission to Practice as an Attorney. (From the State of New Jersey.)

—Application granted. Present — Lewis, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ.
### Part A—Federal Provisions
Case 0:20-cv-61469-RS Document 207-125 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2023 Page 1 of 1
Debra L. Reed
Chief Executive Officer

101 Ash St reet San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: 619.696. 4441 DReed @S empra.com

March 15, 2012

The Honorable Ray LaHood U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Alaska Airlines’ application for SAN

- DCA , Docket No. DOT

- OST

- 2012

- 0029

Dear Secretary LaHood :

As chief executive officer of Sempra Energy and c hair of the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation

, I strongly encourage the U.S. Department of Transportation to favorably support the application of Alaska Airlines for air service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National Airport (DCA).

My company

, Sempra Energy, is a Fortune 500 energy services compan y operating four main subsidiaries and employing over 1 7

, 5 00 employees

— over 5,000 in San Die go alone. As an executive here in the region, I am well aware that San Diego

- to

- Dulles average airfares are among the highest o n the west coast , a fact that is exacerbated by taxi fares that average $60 each way between D ulles and the U.S. C apitol . This means our employees pay close to $400

one

- way, on average , each time they travel to Washington, D.C

. via Dulles.

From an economic development standpoint, San Diego is the region that generates the largest passenger market demand without nonstop service to our nation’s capita l . There are countless

other San Diego

- based businesses engaged in hea lth science, clean tech, telecommunications

and national defense that , like Sempra Energy, need quick and convenient access to Reagan National Airport.

S empra Energy is thus pleased to join the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, the San Diego Regional Economic Development Corporation, the World Trade Center Sa n Diego and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce in support ing Alaska Airlines’ ap plication

for nonstop service between San Diego and Washington Reagan National

.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced docket item. W e hope to

hear of a favorable review of Alaska Airlines’ proposal soon.

Sincerely,

Debra L. Reed
#### Sidney M. Teeter v. Anna K. Daniel.

Motion granted, so far as to allow the pending appeal in this case to be argued on the original papers without printing. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### §478. Advisory groups

(a) Within ninety days after the date of the enactment of this chapter, the advisory group required in each United States district court in accordance with section 472 of this title shall be appointed by the chief judge of each district court, after consultation with the other judges of such court.

(b) The advisory group of a district court shall be balanced and include attorneys and other persons who are representative of major categories of litigants in such court, as determined by the chief judge of such court.

(c) Subject to subsection (d), in no event shall any member of the advisory group serve longer than four years.

(d) Notwithstanding subsection (c), the United States Attorney for a judicial district, or his or her designee, shall be a permanent member of the advisory group for that district court.

(e) The chief judge of a United States district court may designate a reporter for each advisory group, who may be compensated in accordance with guidelines established by the Judicial Conference of the United States.

(f) The members of an advisory group of a United States district court and any person designated as a reporter for such group shall be considered as independent contractors of such court when in the performance of official duties of the advisory group and may not, solely by reason of service on or for the advisory group, be prohibited from practicing law before such court.

(Added Pub. L. 101–650, title I, §103(a), Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5094.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The date of the enactment of this chapter, referred to in subsec. (a), is the date of enactment of Pub. L. 101–650, which was approved Dec. 1, 1990.
§ 19.525 Fringe benefits. ( a ) *“Fringe benefits” defined.* For purposes of these Title IX regulations, *fringe benefits* means: Any medical, hospital, accident, life insurance, or retirement benefit, service, policy or plan, any profit-sharing or bonus plan, leave, and any other benefit or service of employment not subject to the provision of § 19.515.
( b ) *Prohibitions.* A recipient shall not: ( 1 ) Discriminate on the basis of sex with regard to making fringe benefits available to employees or make fringe benefits available to spouses, families, or dependents of employees differently upon the basis of the employee's sex;
( 2 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a fringe benefit plan that does not provide for equal periodic benefits for members of each sex and for equal contributions to the plan by such recipient for members of each sex; or
( 3 ) Administer, operate, offer, or participate in a pension or retirement plan that establishes different optional or compulsory retirement ages based on sex or that otherwise discriminates in benefits on the basis of sex.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs, Region I

475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, PA 19401

Phone: 610/337-5330 Fax: 610/337-5241

Internet: dps@nrc.gov or nas@nrc.gov

I-97-65 June 11, 1997

Contact: Diane Screnci FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Neil A. Sheehan

NRC STAFF PROPOSES $55,000 FINE AGAINST NU

FOR ALLEGED SECURITY VIOLATIONS AT MILLSTONE

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a

$55,000 fine for Northeast Utilities (NU) for two alleged

violations of NRC requirements at its Millstone Nuclear Power

Station in Waterford, Ct. The alleged violations were discussed

during a predecisional enforcement conference on April 7.

NU was cited for seven examples of failing to control

safeguards information at the facility between November 1996 and

March 1997, and 37 incidents in which keys were found in

unattended vehicles in the protected area. The site security

plan requires that vehicles be immobilized with keys controlled

when not in use. Safeguards information relates to security

measures for the physical protection of special nuclear material

or for physical protection of certain plant equipment.

In a letter to the company, NRC Special Projects Office

Director William Travers said, "These violations represent a

significant lack of attention to security responsibilities by not

only your security staff and supervision, but also, and more

importantly, by those site employees and contractor employees who

did not follow security requirements. At the enforcement

conference, your staff acknowledged that site personnel did not

consistently assume appropriate individual responsibility of

security requirements, and that corrective actions for previous

occurrences of the same violations have been ineffective. Given

the repetitive and continuing nature of these two violations,

they represent a significant regulatory concern with respect to

degradation of the security program at the facility."

NU also was cited, but not fined, for the failure to perform

a hand search of a person granted access to the protected area

after the person caused an alarm while being checked with a handheld metal detector.

NU has 30 days either to pay the proposed fine or to request

in writing that part or all of it be withdrawn.

#