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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                           73143
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             262
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 97193
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     245969
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          302403
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            305437
<LOANS>                                        1025081
<ALLOWANCE>                                      15374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1808400
<DEPOSITS>                                     1566973
<SHORT-TERM>                                     34376
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              15509
<LONG-TERM>                                       3510
<COMMON>                                         33103
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      154929
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 1808400
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  71625
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                24084
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                  3011
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 98720
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               40757
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1161
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            56802
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      709
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 357
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  41651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  26577
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       26577
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     17693
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.24
<LOANS-NON>                                      12831
<LOANS-PAST>                                      3179
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   306
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  19729
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 15463
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                     1493
<RECOVERIES>                                       693
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                15372
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             15372
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# EPA Registration Number

70506

- 4 vol. 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6734
MICHAEL U. REED, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-01-478) Submitted: July 25, 2002 Decided: August 2, 2002 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael U. Reed, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Michael U. Reed seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Reed v. Angelone , No. CA-01-478 (E.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2002). 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
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 29, 2019

NO. 03-19-00018-CV

Farida Moeen and Pulin Pandya, Appellants

v.

Centrix Group, LLC, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND SMITH

DISMISSED ON APPELLANTS’ MOTION -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on December 4, 2018. 

Farida Moeen and Pulin Pandya have filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and having considered 

the motion, the Court agrees that the motion should be granted. Therefore, the Court grants the

motion and dismisses the appeal. The appellants shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both 

in this Court and in the court below.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Melvin Streeter, Appellant.

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered August 8,1977, convicting defendant of an attempt to commit murder in the second degree and an attempt to commit assault in the first degree and sentencing him thereupon to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years and *2 Vs*to 7 years, respectively, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the matter remanded for a new trial. In this assault case, involving two sharply conflicting factual versions, defendant took the stand and testified to facts supporting a defense of justification. On cross-examination, the prosecutor was allowed, over objection, to show that defendant had never made a statement or complaint consistent with such version of the incident, either at the scene where he was arrested, or later. This was fundamentally unfair and violative of due process. *(Doyle v Ohio,*426 US 610, 617-618; *People v Conyers,*65 AD2d 437.) The error was compounded when, on summation, the prosecutor improperly contrasted defendant’s silence at the scene with a statement at the scene by Juan Ramos, a prosecution witness, to the responding officers. Worse yet, the evidence of what Ramos said was inadmissible hearsay. He was allowed to testify, over objection, that he had told the police "that was the knife with which [defendant] had stabbed my brother.” Detective Kearns twice testified, also over objection, that Ramos told him at the scene that "[his] brother had been stabbed * * * and [Jones, defendant’s witness] tried to take the knife.” The receipt in evidence of this hearsay enabled the prosecution to bolster its witness’s testimony by showing prior consistent statements. The court was to aggravate this error by instructing the jury in its charge to consider prior consistent statements, as well as inconsistent statemehts, in assessing a witness’s credibility. Also, the charge on interested witnesses was less than balanced, focusing, as it did, on Jones, the defense witness. Finally, a series of prosecutorial improprieties throughout the trial had a cumulative effect which would, in any event, mandate reversal. Two instances of such conduct are sufficient to illustrate the point. In his opening the prosecutor asserted that defendant, if he took the stand, would lie, and in his summation admonished the jury that "To fail to convict this defendant * * * would be under the facts failure to enforce the law”, and that each juror represented thousands of people and that it was now their "job” to convict defendant since "our system is only as *878strong as those who are willing to keep it strong.” Concur — Evans, J. P., Fein, Sullivan, Lupiano and Lynch, JJ.
#### In the Matter of David O’Brien, Appellant, v. Francis W. Farrell, as Director of the New York State Civil Defense Commission, et al., Respondents. In the Matter of John Mattice, Appellant, v. Francis W. Farrell, as Director of the New York State Civil Defense Commission, et al., Respondents.

Judgments affirmed, without costs, on the opinion of Foster, J. at Special Term. (44 Misc 2d 438.) Gibson, P. J., Reynolds, Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.
M. P. No. 75-105.

#### Dolores Seabra *v.*Puritan Life Insurance Company.

*Albert B. Watt,*for plaintiff. *Hinckley, Allen, Salisbury & Parsons, Robert W. Lovegreen,*for defendant.

Motion that the defendant’s motion for extension of time for transmission of record be denied and that the order of April 10, 1975 for extension of time be vacated is denied.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 688 

To suspend the importation of beef and poultry from Brazil. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 21, 2017 

Mr. TESTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend the importation of beef and poultry from Brazil. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SUSPENSION OF IMPORTATION OF BEEF AND 

4 POULTRY FROM BRAZIL. 

5 Beef, beef products, poultry, and poultry products 

6 imported from Brazil may not enter the United States 

7 during the period beginning on the date of the enactment 

8 of this Act and ending on the date that is 120 days after 

9 such date of enactment. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
                                                                                       Exhibit 12(a)


PP&L RESOURCES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

              (Millions of Dollars)
<CAPTION>
                                                     1996     1995     1994     1993     1992
<S>                                                <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
  Interest on long-term debt ......................   $207     $213     $214     $226     $240
  Interest on short-term debt
     and other interest ...........................     17       18       18       13       12
  Amortization of debt discount, expense
    and premium - net..............................      2        2        2        2        1
  Interest on capital lease
    obligations
      Charged to expense ..........................     13       15       12        9       10
      Capitalized .................................      2        2        1        1        2
  Estimated interest component of
    operating rentals .............................      8        8        6        5        5
  Proportionate share of fixed charges
    of 50-percent-or-less-owned
    persons .......................................      1        1        1        1        1

          Total fixed charges .....................   $250     $259     $254     $257     $271

Earnings, as defined:
  Net income ......................................   $329     $323     $216     $314     $306
  Preferred and Preference Stock Dividend
    Requirements...................................     28       28       28       34       40
  Less undistributed income of less
    than 50-percent-owned persons ................             -                                   -
                                                       357      351      244      348      346

Add (Deduct):
  Federal income taxes ............................    189      195      198      163      145
  State income taxes ..............................     64       62       77       64       65
  Deferred income taxes ...........................     10       15      (45)      22       33
  Investment tax credit - net .....................    (10)     (10)     (12)     (14)     (14)
  Income taxes on other income and
    deductions - net ..............................      0       24      (38)      (1)       0
  Amortization of capitalized
    interest on capital leases ....................      4        5        9       12       13
  Total fixed charges as above
    (excluding capitalized interest
    on capital lease obligations) .................    248      257      253      256      271

          Total earnings ..........................   $862     $899     $686     $850     $859

Ratio of earnings to fixed
  charges .........................................   3.45     3.47     2.70     3.31     3.15

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 28, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert D. George,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  |                                         
|------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | -------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
|                    |  |  | 
|Dated: June 6, 2006 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Robert D. George
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Robert D. George                        
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Vice President, Chief Financial Officer,
|                    |  |  |  |     |  |                      |  | Secretary and Treasurer
#### Leo Evans et al., Appellants, v. Mace Plastics Corporation, Respondent.

Motion by appellants to stay the respondent and the County Clerk of Westchester County from satisfying a judgment rendered May 16, 1963 by the County Court, Westchester County, pending appeal from the judgment. On the court’s own motion, the appeal and the appellants’ motion are transferred to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department (see orders of this court, No. 47 of July 12, 1962 and No. 2 of Dec. 12, 1962; N. Y. Const., art. VI, § 8, subd. d; § 5, subd. b). This appeal should have been taken to the Appellate Term. Kleinfeld, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Angeles
Partners X Limited Partnership 1995 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317900
<NAME> ANGELES PARTNERS X LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         297,046
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,045
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      19,594,937
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,022,448
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,058,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                     18,451,968
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,041,360)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,058,720
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,487,997
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,392,542
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,927,653
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (909,201)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (909,201)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (909,201)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (48.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Hyman Rosenshein, et al. Col-Mot Holdings, Inc.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs, unless the appellant procures the record on appeal and appellant’s points to be served and filed on or before May 3, 1962, with notice of argument for May 15, 1962, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. Concur ■—Botein, P. J., Stevens, Eager, Steuer and Bergan, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       2,389,758
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,756,131
<ALLOWANCES>                                    75,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,246,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,847,350
<PP&E>                                      86,022,531
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,444,381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              79,074,532
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,777,233
<BONDS>                                     10,200,014
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,639,662
<OTHER-SE>                                  54,016,514
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                79,074,532
<SALES>                                     57,941,785
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            63,121,510
<CGS>                                       59,414,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               58,804,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,653,681
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,354,983
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,714,395
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,895
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,733,290
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,733,290
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .11
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11
        

</TABLE>
#### Morris Rosenfeld et al., Respondents, v. Virginia Dare Stores Corp. et al., Appellants, and Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, entered on June 5, 1964, granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and of defendant, the Prudential Insurance Company *of*America, and the judgment entered thereon on August 4, 1964 following an assessment of damages, Unanimously modified on the law to the extent of directing that defendants-appellants have judgment over against defendant Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., and, as so modified, *881affirmed, with $50 costs to respondents. The record demonstrates that Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., agreed to indemnify appellants and hold them harmless from any liability from a default by Wilbur-Rogers, Inc., under the lease. There is no issue as to the default and resultant liability of Wilbur-Rogers, Inc. Consequently, appellants were entitled to judgment over against Wilbur-Rogers, Inc. as demanded in the cross claim of their answer. Concur — Botein, P. J., Rabin, Yalente, Eager and Witmer, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000034047
<NAME>                        EXOTECH INCORPORATED
       

<S>                                             <C>            
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS          
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                               JAN-30-1999    
<PERIOD-END>                                    DEC-31-1998    
<CASH>                                            25,906       
<SECURITIES>                                           0       
<RECEIVABLES>                                     42,142       
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0       
<INVENTORY>                                      402,949       
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 961,788       
<PP&E>                                           231,530       
<DEPRECIATION>                                   231,412       
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   966,508       
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,187,323       
<BONDS>                                                0       
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0       
<PREFERRED>                                            0       
<COMMON>                                          97,014       
<OTHER-SE>                                      (613,629)      
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     966,508       
<SALES>                                          324,320       
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 324,578       
<CGS>                                            309,239       
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    309,239       
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0       
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                20,997       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (5,650)      
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0       
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (5,650)      
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0       
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0       
<CHANGES>                                              0       
<NET-INCOME>                                      (5,650)      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.01)      
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.01)      
                                              


</TABLE>
#### STATE v. GREENE

No. 456A87-4

Case below: Caldwell County Superior Court

328 N.C. 771

324 N.C. 1

Motion by Attorney General to dismiss record on appeal allowed 5 February 1998.
### §6112. Regulations

The Secretary may issue such regulations as are necessary to carry out this chapter.

(Pub. L. 101–624, title XIX, §1933, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 3865.)
##### 



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 on Form 10-Q of Three-Five
Systems, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Jack L. Saltich, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director 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 (15 U.S.C.
78m(a) or 78o(d)); 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/ Jack L.
SaltichJack L. SaltichPresident, Chief Executive Officer, and
Director Date: May 7, 2004
# fy05_ga_shell

# Historical