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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000             SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         186,085                  91,409
<SECURITIES>                                 2,166,684               2,149,326
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,694                  95,290
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)                (15,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0                       0
<PP&E>                                          45,235                  45,235
<DEPRECIATION>                                (39,521)                (33,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,552,897               3,470,705
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,479                  77,514
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                     43,566                  43,566
<COMMON>                                       128,307                 128,307
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,381,024               3,221,318
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,552,897               3,470,705
<SALES>                                        127,230                 151,787
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               127,230                 151,787
<CGS>                                          103,337                  96,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,337                  96,240
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                  38,283
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 23,892                  17,264
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,000                   5,639
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,892                  11,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,892                  11,625
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0                       0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0




</TABLE>
### §320303. Regulations

The Secretary, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Secretary of the Army shall make and publish uniform regulations for the purpose of carrying out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 113–287, §3, Dec. 19, 2014, 128 Stat. 3260.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 320303 | 16 U.S.C. 432 (last sentence). | June 8, 1906, ch. 3060, §4, 34 Stat. 225. |

Section
No. 7852.

#### The State ex rel. Cole *v.*Adams, Auditor.

(Decided September 22, 1903.)

Error to Circuit Court of Columbiana county.

*Mr. E. B. Dillon*and *Mr. L. P. Metzger,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. J. PL. Brookes,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Burket, C. J., Shauck, Price and Crew, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 99.1



The following certification accompanies Dynamics Research Corporations Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended March 31, 2003 and is not filed as provided in SEC Release Nos. 33-8212, 34-47551 and IC-25967 dated March 21, 2003.



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 on Form 10-Q of Dynamics
Research Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the Company), for the period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:



(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act),
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/    JAMES P. REGANJames P. ReganChairman and Chief Executive Officer




May 12, 2003



---



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Dynamics Research Corporation and will be retained by Dynamics
Research Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Earl, Appellant.

Order entered September 21, 1961, denying, without a hearing, application of petitioner-appellant (herein appellant) for a writ of error *coram nobis*to vacate a judgment, rendered January 28, 1947, convicting appellant upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree, reversed on the law and the facts, and the matter remanded for a hearing. Appellant was indicted on or about December 23, 1946, charged with the crime of robbery in the first degree. He alleges that he was questioned thereafter on six occasions at the office of the District Attorney concerning the crime to which he subsequently and on January 28, 1947 pleaded guilty. Appellant alleges further that at such interrogations he was without the benefit of counsel and as the result of threats and intimidation he agreed to and did later plead guilty. The opposing affidavit submitted by the People merely recites that defendant admitted the robbery for which he was indicted and he made a full confession (see *People*v. *Nicholson,*11 N Y 2d 1067). This does not meet the issue of whether defendant by a violation of his constitutional rights was questioned as to the other crimes and thus collaterally induced to plead guilty. In that connection, at the time of plea the prosecution referred to confession by defendant of other crimes. The affidavit makes no attempt to answer or deny the charges of the appellant. The brief attempts to supply some of the omissions, but the brief is not the record. The sole question before us is whether on the facts alleged, undisputed or not controverted by documentary evidence, the appellant is entitled to a hearing. It may well be that appellant at a hearing will not be able to sustain the charges made. However, in our view a hearing is required. “It is only when the record convincingly demonstrates the falsity of such allegations that such relief will be denied.” *(People*V. *GuarigUa,*303 N. Y. 338, 342; *People*v. *Picciotti,*4 N Y 2d 340.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Stevens and Bergan, JJ. McNally J., dissents in the following memorandum: On January 28, 1947 defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the first degree. Fourteen years later he brings this motion for *eoram nobis*relief claiming that during the period between the filing of the indictment and the plea of guilty he was brought to the District Attorney’s office and questioned without benefit of counsel; that as a result thereof he pleaded guilty to avoid continued intimidations and threats made by the police and the prosecuting authorities. The record shows defendant was represented by an attorney at the time of pleading and at the time of sentence. In my opinion the issue as to whether the plea was illegally obtained was waived by *709the plea of guilty. (See *People*v. Nicholson, 11 N Y 2d 1067; *People*v. Jones, 11 N Y 2d 1070.) Accordingly, I dissent and vote to affirm.
### **CHAPTER 23—FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE**
#### In re HUNT. In the matter of the judicial settlement of the accounts of Ruth Hunt as executrix of the last will and testament of Thomas Hunt, deceased.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 17, 1903.)

No opinion. Motion granted.
(November 28, 1960)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. George W. Boyle, Jr., Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers (including,the typed minutes) and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file six typewritten copies of his brief and to serve one copy on the District Attorney. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the February Term, beginning January 30, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Richard C. Cahn, Esq., 48 Elm Street, Huntington, New York, is-assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Kleinfeld, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**Certification PursuantTo 18 U.S.C. 1350,As Adopted Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of CyanotechCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period endedMarch 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Gerald R. Cysewski, Chief Executive Officer ofthe Company certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1)                                      TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

2)                                      Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date:  | February 13, 2007 | /s/ Gerald R.  Cysewski                  |
|--------|-------------------|------------------------------------------|
|   |              | Gerald R.  Cysewski,                     |
|   |              | *Chairman  of the Board of Directors,*   |
|   |              | *President  and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

 

----
§ 232.13 Compliance dates. ( a ) *In general.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a creditor must comply with the requirements of this part, as may be applicable, with respect to a consumer credit transaction or account for consumer credit consummated or established on or after October 3, 2016, not later than that date.
( b ) *Safe harbors for identifying a covered borrower* — ( 1 ) *New safe harbors.* Section 232.5 shall apply October 3, 2016.
( 2 ) *Prior safe harbor valid until general compliance date.* The provisions relating to the identification of a covered borrower set forth in § 232.5(a) of the regulation established by the Department and effective on October 1, 2007 (including the interpretation by the Department that provides an exception from the safe harbor for the creditor's knowledge that the applicant is a covered borrower) shall remain in effect until October 3, 2016.
( c ) *Limited exemption for credit card account; reservation of authority* — ( 1 ) *In general.* Notwithstanding § 232.3(f)(1) and subject to paragraph (c)(2) of this section, until October 3, 2017, consumer credit does not mean credit extended in a credit card account under an open-end (not home-secured) consumer credit plan.
( 2 ) *Authority to issue an order to extend exemption.* The Secretary, or an official of the Department duly authorized by the Secretary, may, by order, extend the expiration of the exemption set forth in paragraph (c)(1) of this section, until a date not later than October 3, 2018.
#### § 1904.4 Notification to CIA Office of General Counsel.

A CIA employee who receives or has reason to expect service of process in an individual, official, or combined individual and official capacity, in a matter that may involve testimony or the furnishing of documents and that could reasonably be expected to involve Agency interests, shall promptly notify the Litigation Division, Office of General Counsel (703-874-3118). Such notification should be given prior to providing the requestor, counsel or other representative any Agency information, and prior to accepting service of process.
#### SEELY v. BORUM & ASSOC., INC.

No. 428P97

Case below: 127 N.C.App. 193

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 6 November 1997.
Amendment No. 1 to the Production Agreement, dated February 1, 2006



 Exhibit 10.29 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE 
 CONTRACT BY AND BETWEEN 
 HAWAIIAN TELCOM COMMUNICATIONS INC. AND DATAPROSE, INC. 
 FOR BILL PRINTING AND MAILING 
  
 This Amendment No. 1 to the Contract for Bill Rendering, Printing and Mailing (the “Contract”) on or about October 15, 2005 concerning
procurement of services for the printing and mailing of the Client’s phone bills. Is made and entered into this 1st day of February 2006 by and between Hawaiian Telcom Communications, Inc. (Client) and DataProse, Inc. (DataProse). 

 
  
 Article 1 of the Contract is amended to add the following: 
  
 Article 1 
 SCOPE OF PRODUCTION AGREEMENT 
  
 Additionally, DataProse agrees to provide Fulfillment Services on a monthly basis. Quantities are estimated at 15,000 per month with mail drops to be
done daily. Client may modify specifications for a particular application under Section 7.0 by furnishing revised specification in writing to DataProse. If such modification changes the cost to DataProse then DataProse will provide revised pricing
for Client approval. These products and services shall be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions set forth in Schedule 7.0 attached to this Amendment. 
  
  
 This Amendment may only be amended by written
agreement executed by all parties hereto. 
  
 The Contract shall
remain in full force and effect except to the extent it is modified by any Amendments. In the event there is a conflict between the Amendment and the Contract, the Amendment shall control. All Amendments and the Contract embody the entire agreement
between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. There are no oral understandings or agreements between the parties regarding the subject matter hereof. 
  

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date written above. 
  
  

							
	HAWAIIAN TELCOM	  	DATAPROSE, INC.
				
	By:	  	 /s/ Joan M. Kratz

	  	By:	  	 /s/ [Illegible]


				
	Title:	  	Sr. V.P. Chief Marketing Officer	  	Title:	  	President
				
	Date:	  	2/20/2006	  	Date:	  	2/22/2006
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 01-60930

_____________________

JAKE AYERS, JR, Etc; ET AL

Plaintiffs

JAKE AYERS, JR, Private Plaintiffs

Plaintiff - Appellant

LILLIE B AYERS; LEOLA BLACKMON; RANDOLPH WALKER; HENRY BERNARD

AYERS; DR IVORY PHILLIPS; APPROXIMATELY 4,000 PETITIONERS,

AFFIANTS, PARTIES IN INTEREST AND OTHERWISE PARTICIPANTS IN THE

AYERS CONTROVERSY, also known as Lillie B Ayers Private

Plaintiffs

Appellants

v.

RONNIE MUSGROVE, Governor, State of Mississippi

Defendant - Appellee

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF STATE INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING; DELTA

STATE UNIVERSITY; MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITY; UNIVERSITY OF

SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI; UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI; MISSISSIPPI

UNIVERSITY FOR WOMEN

Appellees

v.

LOUIS ARMSTRONG

Movant - Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

(4:75-CV-9)

_________________________________________________________________
* 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.

2

December 28, 2001

Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants are members of a class certified under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). FED. R. CIV. PRO. 23(b)(2). 

After other members of the class proposed a settlement agreement

but before the district court approved or rejected that

agreement, Appellants filed a motion for leave to opt out of the

class. The district court entered an order denying Appellants’

motion to opt out, and Appellants appeal that order.

We dismiss Appellants’ appeal because the district court’s

order is not currently appealable. First, the district court’s

order is not appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because it is not

a final decision “that ends the litigation on the merits and

leaves nothing more for the court to do but execute the

judgment.” Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph, 531 U.S.

79, 86 (2000) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 

Second, the district court’s order is not appealable under 28

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) as an injunction because the order does not

command action from any party, does not threaten contempt for

non-action, and does not accord substantive relief to any party. 

See Police Ass’n of New Orleans v. City of New Orleans, 100 F.3d
3

1159, 1166 (5th Cir. 1996). Third, the district court’s order is

not appealable as a class certification order under Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 23(f). FED. R. CIV. PRO. 23(f). Finally, the

district court’s order is not appealable as a collateral order

because it does not resolve questions separate from the merits

and is effectively reviewable on appeal from the final judgment. 

See Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 469 & n.12

(1978).

Appeal DISMISSED.
#### Sandra Cerkowski, Respondent, v. Opal Sgambati et al., Appellants.

— Defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of plaintiff in an automobile negligence case, entered upon the verdict of a jury. Plaintiff was a passenger in a ear driven by her husband when it was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by the defendant Harris Gibault. The accident happened at the intersection of Linden Street and Howland Avenue in the Village of Hemstreet Park. Gibault was driving east on Howland Avenue and the Cerkowski car was proceeding north on Linden, intending to make a left turn into Howland Avenue. Plaintiff tried the case upon the theory that the vehicle driven by Gibault ran into the vehicle in which she was riding near the center of the intersection. There is rather convincing evidence, especially photographic exhibits, which strongly suggest that the Cerkowski car *“*cut ” the corner on its left side of the street and ran into the Gibault ear. The jury found that both drivers were negligent and returned a verdict of no cause of action against the driver of the Cerkowski ear. On this record a verdict finding that Gibault was negligent was against the weight of the evidence, Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. Coon, J. P., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
#### § 168a.2 Applicability.

This part applies to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the Military Departments, and the Defense Agencies (hereafter referred to collectively as “DoD Components”).
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 131664-65(86) Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, IN RE CONTEMPT OF MARK ALLEN Justices 

MURDOCK 

_________________________________________/ 

AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING,

Plaintiff-Appellee, SC: 131664, 131665 

 COA: 262786, 265111 

Wayne CC: 03-320706-CZ 

v 

MARK ALLEN MURDOCK and JUANITA 

DENISE MURDOCK,

Defendants-Appellants. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s August 29, 

2006 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously. 

d1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 18, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00855

- CR

IN RE Destyn David FREDERICK

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

On December 9, 2019, r elator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition

for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s request fo r leave to file his petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED AS MOOT.

It is so ORDERED on December 18, 2019

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

c ourt on this 18th day of December, 2019

.

_____________________________ Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11

- 09

- 00041

- CRL, styled The State of Texas v. Destyn David Frederick

, pending in the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes presiding.
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 248 (Monday, December 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 84355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28527]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute 
Special Emphasis Panel; Biomedical Devices for Ventricular Repair.
    Date: January 22, 2021.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Stephanie J Webb, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review/DERA, National Heart, Lung, and 
Blood Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6705 Rockledge 
Drive, Room 208-V, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 827-7992, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98ebecfde8f0f9f6f1fdb6effdfafad8f6f1f0b6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="56252233263e37383f33782133343416383f3e78313920">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.233, 
National Center for Sleep Disorders Research; 93.837, Heart and 
Vascular Diseases Research; 93.838, Lung Diseases Research; 93.839, 
Blood Diseases and Resources Research, National Institutes of 
Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 18, 2020.
David W. Freeman,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-28527 Filed 12-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>