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

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000757262
<NAME> FNB BANKING COMPANY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       7,277,179
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       1,717,725
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,096,451
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,732,531
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       8,222,504
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         8,583,613
<LOANS>                                    137,416,213
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,102,566
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             192,770,867
<DEPOSITS>                                 166,718,253
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,609,440
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,998,017
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       807,800
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,637,357
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             192,770,867
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,803,825
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              356,286
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               133,191
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,293,302
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,518,689
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,553,062
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        2,740,240
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  143,950
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,453
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,080,235
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,035,352
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,035,352
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   685,993
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    6.20
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,813,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   474,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               261,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             2,012,795
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                  108,867
<RECOVERIES>                                    54,688
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,102,566
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         2,102,566
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          221,715
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,509,474
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,731,189)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,890
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (39,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (39,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (39,890)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.00)


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Christopher Ahmed, Appellant.

Judgment convicting defendant, after trial, of the crimes of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, unanimously modified on the law and the facts, by reducing the judgment of conviction to robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the second degree and remanding the case to the trial court for resentence, otherwise affirmed. At one point the trial court charged the jury as follows: “It is not part of the People’s case to prove that the gun was loaded. I referred to some parts where the gun was loaded, it is only sufficient that the People have to establish in their case if they show there was a weapon capable of producing grievous bodily harm relating to the assault count. ” This charge was improper in that it permitted the jury to find the defendant guilty of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, without finding that he was armed with a dangerous weapon (Penal Law, § 2124, subd. 1; § 2126, subd. 2). The court, by such charge, indicated erroneously in the circumstances of this ease, that first degree robbery could be committed with an unloaded gun. The only proof was that the gun was pointed at the complainant and not used in any other manner. The record does, however, warrant a judgment of conviction of a lesser degree of such crime, to wit: robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery, second degree (Code Crim. Pro., §§ 542, 543). The court is cognizant of the fact that the sentence imposed is, even after the reduction directed herein, still within the limits prescribed by law. However, it is for *730the trial court, as a matter of discretion, and only if and after he finds it warranted, to modify such sentence. Concur — Botein, P. J., Stener, Capozzoli, Tilzer and McNally, JJ.
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Alliance Financial Corporation (the
Company) for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J. Daniel Mohr, Treasurer and 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 to the best of my knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: April 30, 2009



/s/    J. Daniel MohrName: J. Daniel MohrTitle: Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
4.1902 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all acquisitions, including acquisitions of commercial products or commercial

services other than commercially available off-the-shelf items, when a contractor's information

system may contain Federal contract information.

Parent topic: Subpart 4.19 - Basic Safeguarding of Covered Contractor Information Systems
§ 51.347 Application of tolerances. Apples in closed packages are subject to the following limitations provided the averages for the entire lot are within the tolerances specified for the grade: ( a ) For a tolerance of 10 percent, individual packages shall have not more than one and one-half times the tolerance specified. For a tolerance of less than 10 percent, individual packages shall have not more than double the tolerances specified.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Stanley Osowski, Appellant, v Board of Cooperative Educational Services et al., Respondents. Workers’ Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed September 25, 1979, which denied claimant continuing compensation payments on the basis that he voluntarily left his employment. Claimant began his employment with BOCES as a teacher’s aid in the automotive shop in September, 1972. He sustained a compensable back injury in January of 1975 which caused him to be out of work for five weeks. Claimant continued in his employment without any significant lost time until the fall of 1977. Thereupon, through two letters dated October 6 and October 17, claimant notified his employer of his intention to retire effective January 1, 1978 because of continuing pain caused by his prior back injury. Following his retirement at the age of 61, claimant moved to Florida. Because he had completed five years of service with his employer, claimant qualified for a $45 a month pension. There is substantial evidence to support the board’s finding that claimant voluntarily retired. Although a person who has suffered a partial disability is not precluded from claiming compensation by attempting to return to work *(Matter of Ferenbaugh v Endicott Johnson Corp.,*9 AD2d 594), the question of whether a worker’s retirement is caused by his disability or by other factors is a factual issue for the board to resolve *(Matter of Haar v Strauss-Duparquet,*29 AD2d 726, *741mot for lv to app den 21 NY2d 646). In the instant case, the claimant waited almost three years from the date of his back injury before retiring. When he did retire, he had barely accumulated the minimum time required to earn a pension from his employer. Claimant made no attempt to search for employment which was compatible with his disability, but instead, chose to immediately retire to Florida. From these facts, the board could properly infer that claimant’s true motivation for retiring was personal and not based on his disability. Accordingly, the board’s decision must be upheld. Decision affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur; Staley, Jr., J., not taking part.
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 22230.

These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

                    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an individual basis in the                     **Federal Register**                    . NSF intends to publish a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site:                     *http://www.nsf.gov.*                     This information may also be requested by telephoning, 703/292-8182.                

Dated: November 30, 2010.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-30333 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
§ 6.24 Application for a license. ( a ) Application for license shall be made on electronic forms designated for the purpose by the Licensing Authority. All parts of the application shall be completed. The application shall be transmitted no earlier than September 1 and no later than midnight October 15 of the year preceding that for which license application is made. The Licensing Authority will not accept incomplete applications.
( b ) ( 1 ) Where the applicant seeks to establish eligibility on the basis of imports, applications shall include identification of entries sufficient to establish the applicant as the importer of record of entries required under § 6.23, during the 12-month period ending August 31 prior to the quota year for which license is being sought. For qualifying licensed entries, verification will be only processed through DAIRIES and cross checked with entries in the CBP system. For qualifying unlicensed entries, the applicant will submit an electronic copy (*e.g.* scanned PDF) of CBP Form 7501 to the Licensing Authority.
( 2 ) Where the applicant seeks to establish eligibility on the basis of exports, applications shall include: ( i ) Census Form 7525 or a copy of the electronic submission of such form, and
( ii ) The commercial invoice or bill of sale for the quantities and number of export shipments required under § 6.23, during the 12-month period ending August 31 prior to the quota year for which license is being sought.
( c ) An applicant requesting more than one nonhistorical license must rank order these requests by the applicable Additional U.S. Note number. Cheese and cheese products must be ranked separately from dairy articles other than cheese or cheese products.
[80 FR 44254, July 27, 2015]
#### Douglas J. Howell et al., Respondents, v Duane P. Howell, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County, entered December 4, 1979 which denied appellant’s motion to vacate a default judgment entered against him on September 24, 1979 as a result of his failure to perform the terms of a settlement stipulation entered into in open court. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and action restored to the Trial Calendar. Plaintiffs commenced this action asserting several causes of action, the first of which was to recover the sum of $70,000, allegedly wrongfully converted by appellant to his own use. After the action came on for trial, the parties entered into a settlement stipulation in open court which required appellant to make specified payments of money within a set time period. A written document of guarantee was to be furnished by appellant’s mother in order to secure appellant’s financial obligations. The stipulation provided that upon appellant’s failure to make the payments he would be deemed to be in default of the entire agreement. It was further provided that upon his *615default in payment, the guarantor would be obligated to make the required payments. In the event that both appellant and his mother defaulted, plaintiffs could then, at their election, enter a judgment against appellant under the first cause of action set forth in the complaint. The stipulation also provided for a restoration of the action to the Trial Calendar in the event that the document of guarantee was not executed and delivered to plaintiffs’ attorneys. The record reveals that the guarantor failed to execute and deliver the document of guarantee to plaintiffs’ attorneys. Consequently, pursuant to the clear and unambiguous language in the settlement stipulation, the action should have been restored to the Trial Calendar. The provision giving plaintiffs the option of entering a judgment against defendant does not come into play since it is dependent upon a default on the part of both appellant and the guarantor. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Gulotta, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 33.2



ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING
CRITERIA

The Bank of New York, The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A. and The Bank of New York (Delaware) (collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:Platform:  Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) asset-backed securities issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, or paying agent services, other than residential mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities.  The platform includes like-kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities administrator, or paying agent services as a result of the Company's acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust transactions.Applicable Servicing Criteria:  All servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to any transaction, except for the following criteria:  1122 (d) (1) (ii), (iii), (iv), (2) (iii), (vi), (4) (vi), (vii), (viii), (x), (xi), (xii), (xiii) and (xiv).Period:  Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.
With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing Criteria:

- The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
- The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.
- As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing assessment of compliance.

| |  | The Bank of New York                     |  | The Bank of New York                    
| |  | ---------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------
| |  | The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A. |  | The Bank of New York Trust Company, N.A.
| |  | The Bank of New York (Delaware)          |  |                                         
| |  |                                          |  |                                         
| |  | /s/ ROBERT L. GRIFFIN                    |  | /s/ PATRICK J. TADIE                    
| |  |                                          |  |                                         
| |  | Robert L. Griffin                        |  | Patrick J. Tadie                        
| |  | Authorized Signer                        |  | Authorized Signer                       

March 1, 2007