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

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          64,339
<SECURITIES>                                    24,112
<RECEIVABLES>                                  142,781
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,312
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               274,131
<PP&E>                                          77,207
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,575
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 330,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          108,660
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              586
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     220,558
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   330,962
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               451,875
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  395,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (2,020)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   542
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 57,927
<INCOME-TAX>                                    22,238
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             35,689
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    35,689
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
        

</TABLE>
456 P.2d 221

#### CITY OF SANTA FE, a municipal corporation, and Santa Fe Cablevision Corporation, Petitioners, v. The Honorable J. V. GALLEGOS, Respondent. CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE, a municipal corporation, and General Communications and Entertainment Company, Inc., a corporation, Petitioners, v. The Honorable Paul F. LARRAZOLO, Respondent.

Nos. 8865, 8866.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

July 22, 1969.

MOISE, COMPTON, TACKETT and WATSON, Justices, concurring.

NOBLE, Chief Justice, being absent and not participating.

Ordered that the alternative writs of prohibition heretofore issued herein on June 12, 1969, be and they are hereby quashed as having been improvidently issued.
Third Department,

March, 1949.

(March 9, 1949.)

#### In the Matter of the Claim of Mary Ann La Violette, Appellant, against Chisholm Ryder Company, Inc., et al., Respondents. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Santry, JJ. [See 274 App. Div. 1077.]
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 9:39 AM

To: 'donlee98@yahoo.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Donald Lee (FAA-2015-0959)

August 19, 2015 

Dear Mr. Lee: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-0959). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) of the 

DJI Phantom Series that you intend to use for your operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by September 2, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
#### Charles Samm, Appellant, v. Wennemer Brothers, Inc., and Patent Scaffolding Company, Respondents.

Judgments affirmed, with costs. Ho opinion. Order to be settled on notice. Present — Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin, Clarke and Scott, JJ.; Clarke and Scott, JJ., dissented as to Wennemer Brothers, Inc., and voted for affirmance.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2742
DEAN W. SMITH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRAVEN HOCKING COAL CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; WAMPUM HARDWARE COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation; MACK ENERGY COMPANY, an Ohio corporation; EASTERN KENTUCKY EXPLOSIVES, a Kentucky corporation, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-738-3) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dean W. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Lee Trautwein, LAMP,O'DELL, BARTRAM, ENTSMINGER, LEVY & TRAUTWEIN, P.L.L.C., Huntington, West Virginia; John Tyler Dinsmore, FLAHERTY, SENSABAUGH & BONASSO, Charleston, West Virginia; Barry Michael Taylor, JENKINS FENSTERMAKER, P.L.L.C., Huntington, West Virginia; Edward Martin Kowal, Jr., CAMPBELL, WOODS, BAGLEY, EMERSON, MCNEER & HERNDON, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:Appellant appeals the district court's order denying Appellant's requests to reverse the decision of the Supreme Court of West Virginia and to remand the action to the Circuit Court of Mason County, West Virginia. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Smith v. Raven Hocking Coal Corp., No. CA-97-738-3 (S.D.W. Va. Nov. 5, 1997). Additionally, we deny Appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as moot. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report of
Wells Real Estate Fund VII, L.P. (the Registrant) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned, Leo F. Wells, III, Chief
Executive Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, and Douglas P. Williams, Chief Financial Officer of the corporate general partner of one of the General Partners of the Registrant, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:



| | (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 Registrant.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                           
|-----------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    LEO F. WELLS, III                                   
|Leo F. Wells, III Chief Executive
Officer November 12, 2004





|                                                             
|-------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    DOUGLAS P. WILLIAMS                                   
|Douglas P. Williams Chief Financial
Officer November 12, 2004
Exhibit 23.2

                                                  McGladrey & Pullen LLP
                                                  Certified Public Accountants


          CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM


We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-32386 and No. 333-116163 on Form S-8 of Timberland Bancorp, Inc. of our
report dated December 14, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial
statements of Timberland Bancorp, Inc., which appears in this Form 10-K for
the year ended September 30, 2010.

/s/McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Seattle, Washington
December 10, 2010

<PAGE>
#### §§ 208.47-208.50 [Reserved]
###### Editorial Note on Part 134

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 134 appear at 72 FR 50042, Aug. 30, 2007.

#### § 134.806 Mediation.

Either the Employee or the SBA may request mediation, or OHA may offer mediation. OHA may designate a Judge or an OHA attorney to serve as a mediator. If the parties reach a settlement through mediation, they may file a joint motion to dismiss the appeal based on that settlement. If the parties do not reach a settlement, the mediation will conclude and the appeal will go to adjudication. An OHA-provided mediator will not be involved in a subsequent adjudication.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Declaration of Disaster #3638]
 As a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 7, 2004, I find that Calhoun, Cherokee, Chester, Chesterfield, Clarendon, Darlington, Dillon, Fairfield, Florence, Greenville, Horry, Kershaw, Lancaster, Lee, Lexington, Marion, Marlboro, Newberry, Oconee, Pickens, Richland, Spartanburg, Sumter, Williamsburg, and York Counties in the State of South Carolina constitute a disaster area due to damages caused by Tropical Storm Frances occurring on September 6, 2004, and continuing. Applications for loans for physical damage as a result of this disaster may be filed until the close of business on December 6, 2004 and for economic injury until the close of business on July 7, 2005 at the address listed below or other locally announced locations:  U.S. Small Business Administration, Disaster Area 2 Office, One Baltimore Place, Suite 300,  Atlanta, GA 30308. 
                    ( print page 61428) In addition, applications for economic injury loans from small businesses located in the following contiguous counties may be filed until the specified date at the above location: Abbeville, Aiken, Anderson, Berkeley, Georgetown, Greenwood, Laurens, Orangeburg, Saluda and Union in the State of South Carolina; Franklin, Habersham, Hart, Rabun, and Stephens Counties in the State of Georgia; Anson, Brunswick, Cleveland, Columbus, Gaston, Henderson, Jackson, Macon, Mecklenburg, Polk, Richmond, Robeson, Rutherford, Scotland, Transylvania, and Union Counties in the State of North Carolina. The interest rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Homeowners with credit available elsewhere
6.375Homeowners without credit available elsewhere
3.187Businesses with credit available elsewhere
5.800Businesses and non-profit organizations without credit available elsewhere
2.900Others (including non-profit organizations) with credit available elsewhere
4.875For Economic Injury:Businesses and small agricultural cooperatives without credit available elsewhere
2.900
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 363808. For economic injury the number is 9AE500 for South Carolina; 9AE600 for Georgia; and 9AE700 for North Carolina. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008) Dated: October 12, 2004. Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 04-23276 Filed 10-15-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
§ 6.21 Procedures for disclosure. ( a ) Upon receipt of a request for disclosure, the system manager shall verify the right of the requestor to obtain disclosure pursuant to § 6.20. Upon that verification and subject to other requirements of this part, the system manager shall make the requested records available.
( b ) If the system manager determines that the disclosure is not permitted under the provisions of § 6.20 or other provisions of this part, the system manager shall deny the request in writing and shall inform the requestor of the right to submit a request for review and final determination to the Administrator or designee.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Murray E. Baker, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Cohn, Callahan and Van Voorhis, JJ.
§ 302.10 Attorneys' and consultants' fees, employment of expediters, and post-employment restriction. ( a ) *Employment of expediters.* Investment Assistance awarded under PWEDA shall not directly or indirectly reimburse any attorneys' or consultants' fees incurred in connection with obtaining Investment Assistance and contracts under PWEDA. Such Investment Assistance shall not be awarded to any Eligible Applicant, unless the owners, partners, or officers of the Eligible Applicant certify to EDA the names of any attorneys, agents, and other persons engaged by or on behalf of the Eligible Applicant for the purpose of expediting an application made to EDA in connection with obtaining Investment Assistance under PWEDA and the fees paid or to be paid to the person(s) for expediting the application.
( b ) *Post-employment restriction.* ( 1 ) In general, any Eligible Applicant that is a non-profit organization, District Organization, or for-profit entity, for the two-year period beginning on the date on which the Investment Assistance under PWEDA is awarded to the Eligible Applicant, must refrain from employing, offering any office or employment to, or retaining for professional services any person who, on the date on which the Investment Assistance is awarded or within the one-year period ending on that date: ( i ) Served as an officer, attorney, agent, or employee of the Department; and
( ii ) Occupied a position or engaged in activities that the Assistant Secretary determines involved discretion with respect to the award of Investment Assistance under PWEDA.
( 2 ) In addition to the types of Eligible Applicants noted in this paragraph (b), EDA may require another Eligible Applicant to execute an agreement to abide by the above-described post-employment restriction on a case-by-case basis; for example, when an institution of higher education implements activities under or related to the Investment Assistance through a separate non-profit organization or association.
[79 FR 76128, Dec. 19, 2014]
### SUBCHAPTER II—BILL OF RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF LABOR ORGANIZATIONS
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 99-79 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Monday, April 19, 1999)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

The Joint Working Group of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee

on Reactor Safeguards and Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste will meet on May 11 in

Rockville, Maryland, to discuss risk-informed regulation in the agency’s Office of Nuclear

Material Safety and Safeguards.

Risk-informed regulation focuses resources on areas where potential risks are greater

and which have the largest impact on safety.

The meeting will be held from 8:30 a.m. until noon in room T-2B3 of the agency’s Two

White Flint North Building at 11545 Rockville Pike.

For those seeking information on whether the meeting has been canceled or

rescheduled, contact John N. Sorensen, at 301-415-7372 (e-mail jns@nrc.gov).

Other aspects of the meeting, including opportunities for comment, will be described in a

forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

###
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diametrics Medical, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, W. Glen
Winchell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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/ W. Glen Winchell
                                            --------------------------------
                                            W. Glen Winchell
                                            Senior Vice President and
                                            Chief Financial Officer
                                            September 15, 2005

                                       15
[No. 6875.

Decided December 20, 1907.]

#### The State of Washington, *Appellant,*v. F. Von Shultz, *Respondent.**1*

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Whatcom county, Neterer, X, entered May 4, 1907, upon sustaining a demurrer to the information.

Affirmed.

*Virgil Peringer*and *Q-eorge Livesey,*for appellant.

*Hardin & Hurlhut,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 93 Pac. 1135.

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal by the state from a judgment of dismissal, after sustaining a demurrer to an information filed under Bal. Code, § 7226 (P. C. § 1794). The demurrer was properly sustained. Wharton,■ Criminal Law (10th ed.), 576; Bishop, Criminal Law, § 794; *Prindle v. State,*31 Tex. Cr. 551, 21 S. W. 360, and authorities cited. *Honselman v. People,*168 Ill. 172, 48 N. E. 304, and *Kelly v. People,*192 Ill. 119, 61 N. E. 425, 85 Am. St. 323, cited by the appellant, arose under a different statute and are not in point. Had the defendant been convicted it might become our duty to further discuss the questions involved, but, inasmuch as the state alone is interested, we feel that its interests will he best subserved by silence.

The judgment is affirmed.
### §503. Financial transactions between labor organization and officers and employees

#### (a) Direct and indirect loans

No labor organization shall make directly or indirectly any loan or loans to any officer or employee of such organization which results in a total indebtedness on the part of such officer or employee to the labor organization in excess of $2,000.

#### (b) Direct or indirect payment of fines

No labor organization or employer shall directly or indirectly pay the fine of any officer or employee convicted of any willful violation of this chapter.

#### (c) Penalty for violations

Any person who willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(Pub. L. 86–257, title V, §503, Sept. 14, 1959, 73 Stat. 536.)
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Francisco Cazarez CASTILLO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-4827.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 25, 2006.

Decided March 6, 2006.

Frank L. Eppes, Eppes & Plumblee, P.A., Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Jonathan S. Gasser, United States Attorney, Regan A. Pendleton, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Following his guilty plea to drug and firearm charges, Francisco Cazarez Castillo was sentenced to 235 months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence, asserting that it was enhanced based on testimony he gave without the assistance of counsel, and therefore in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. We affirm.

After the court accepted Castillo’s plea, a presentence report was prepared, determining that Castillo’s sentencing range was 87 to 108 months in prison. Against the advice of counsel, Castillo then testified for the defense in the trial of Noe Laureano, Castillo’s codefendant and brother. During that testimony, Castillo denied his culpability in the drug transaction that occurred on the day that he and his codefendants were arrested. As a result of this testimony, the presentence report was revised to enhance his sentencing range based on obstruction of justice and to remove the reduction for acceptance of responsibility that had been originally recommended. Castillo’s sentencing range increased to 187 to 235 months. The district court, after hearing argument by counsel and testimony from Castillo, adopted the revisions to the presentence report and sentenced Castillo to 235 months.

On appeal, Castillo concedes that there is no authority concerning the right to counsel during a defendant’s testimony in another defendant’s trial, but asserts that his sentence is the result of the denial of *790the assistance of counsel during his testimony at Laureano’s trial.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel generally will not be addressed on direct appeal unless such ineffectiveness conclusively appears on the record. *United States v. Richardson,*195 F.3d 192, 198 (4th Cir.1999); *United States v. DeFusco,*949 F.2d 114, 120 (4th Cir.1991). We find no conclusive evidence of ineffectiveness of counsel on the record before us, and therefore decline to address this issue in the first instance. Accordingly, we affirm Castillo’s sentence. 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*