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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           17512
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             271
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      99554
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           28528
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             29051
<LOANS>                                         283117
<ALLOWANCE>                                       3130
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  446713
<DEPOSITS>                                      360204
<SHORT-TERM>                                     15254
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               3778
<LONG-TERM>                                      29385
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         14046
<OTHER-SE>                                       24046
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  446713
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  23199
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 6701
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   155
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 30055
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               12322
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               14791
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            15264
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      645
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 196
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  12050
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   5933
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        5933
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4849
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.73
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.06
<LOANS-NON>                                        615
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                  1139
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                   1501
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  2937
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      609
<RECOVERIES>                                       157
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 3130
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              1147
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                           1983
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   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 of Somanetics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic Report"),
I, William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance, Controller, 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:

         1.       the Periodic 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 Periodic Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  February 3, 2003                      /s/ William M. Iacona
                                              ----------------------------------
                                              William M. Iacona, Vice President,
                                              Finance, Controller, Treasurer and
                                              Chief Financial Officer
###### Editorial Note on Subpart R of Part 405

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subpart R of part 405 appear at 79 FR 55031, Aug. 22, 2014.

#### § 405.1855 Evidence at Board hearing.

Evidence may be received at the Board hearing even though inadmissible under the rules of evidence applicable to court procedure. The Board shall give the parties opportunity for submission and consideration of facts and arguments and during the course of the hearing should, in ruling upon admissibility of evidence, exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. The Board shall render a final ruling on the admissibility of evidence.
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



The following table sets forth all subsidiaries of the registrant, the state or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization of each, and the names
under which such subsidiaries do business as of December 31, 2006. The financial statements of all subsidiaries are included in the consolidated statements of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary.



| | 1. |  | The Palmetto Bank, a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc.
| | -- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. |  | Palmetto Capital Inc., a South Carolina corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of The Palmetto Bank
| | -- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HomeOffice of the SpokespersonPress Releases...Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Hasler

# 									Deputy Secretary Sherman’s Call with Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Hasler							

Readout

Office of the Spokesperson

February 23, 2022

The below is attributable to Spokesperson Ned Price:

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman spoke today with Liechtenstein Foreign Minister Dominique Hasler about continued diplomatic engagement to prevent further Russian aggression against Ukraine, including sanctions and other deterrents. They also discussed our close ties and common support for democracy, human rights, and free markets.

Tags

Bureau of European and Eurasian AffairsDeputy Secretary of StateLiechtensteinOffice of the Spokesperson

Back to Top
Editorial Note on Part 422
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 422 appear at 70 FR 4741, Jan. 28, 2005.

§ 422.1046 Conduct of hearing. ( a ) *Participants in the hearing.* The hearing is open to the parties and their representatives and technical advisors, and to any other persons whose presence the ALJ considers necessary or proper.
( b ) *Hearing procedures.* ( 1 ) The ALJ inquires fully into all of the matters at issue, and receives in evidence the testimony of witnesses and any documents that are relevant and material.
( 2 ) If the ALJ believes that there is relevant and material evidence available which has not been presented at the hearing, he may, at any time before mailing of notice of the decision, reopen the hearing to receive that evidence.
( 3 ) The ALJ decides the order in which the evidence and the arguments of the parties are presented and the conduct of the hearing.
( 4 ) CMS has the burden of coming forward with evidence related to disputed findings that is sufficient (together with any undisputed findings and legal authority) to establish a prima facie case that CMS has a legally sufficient basis for its determination.
( 5 ) The affected party has the burden of coming forward with evidence sufficient to establish the elements of any affirmative argument or defense which it offers.
( 6 ) The affected party bears the ultimate burden of persuasion. To prevail, the affected party must prove by a preponderance of the evidence on the record as a whole that there is no basis for the determination.
( c ) *Review of the penalty.* When an administrative law judge finds that the basis for imposing a civil money penalty exists, as specified in 422.752, the administrative law judge may not— ( 1 ) Set a penalty of zero or reduce a penalty to zero, or
( 2 ) Review the exercise of discretion by CMS to impose a civil money penalty.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 164 (Wednesday, August 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43164-43165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20459]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-71,304]


Hitachi Cable Indiana-Kentucky Plant; Russell Springs, KY; Notice 
of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an 
investigation was initiated on June 19, 2009 in response to a worker-
filed petition filed on behalf of workers and former workers at Hitachi 
Cable Indiana-Kentucky Plant, Russell Springs, Kentucky.
    The petition for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) indicates that 
the subject worker group consists of workers producing ``automotive 
fluid movement components and assemblies (brake and power steering 
assemblies''

[[Page 43165]]

at ``223 Progress Drive, Russell Springs, Kentucky.''
    The worker group is covered by a current TAA certification, TA-W-
70,753 (issued June 30, 2009). Consequently, this investigation has 
been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC, this 27th day of July 2009.
Richard Church,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. E9-20459 Filed 8-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5213 September Term, 2020

1:20-cv-01599-UNA

Filed On: December 2, 2020

Stephen Cameron Zyszkiewicz,

Appellant

v.

William Pelham Barr, in his official capacity

as United States Attorney General, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Millett and Pillard, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit 

Judge

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, as well as the

motion to proceed on the original record pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate

Procedure 24(c), it is

ORDERED that the motion to proceed on the original record be granted. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s June 30, 2020

order dismissing appellant’s petition be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded

that appellant failed to demonstrate a clear entitlement to the relief requested, that

appellant failed to show that the government has a clear duty to alter the controlled

substance classification of marijuana, and that appellant has an adequate alternative

remedy under the Controlled Substances Act. See Power v. Barnhart, 292 F.3d 781,

784 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Insofar as appellant sought declaratory relief in his petition, he

failed to identify any judicially remediable right warranting such relief. See Ali v.

Rumsfeld, 649 F.3d 762, 778 (D.C. Cir. 2011).
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 20-5213 September Term, 2020

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk

is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution

of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App.

P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/

Michael C. McGrail 

Deputy Clerk

Page 2
APPROPRIATION FOR ROAD PURPOSES.

Court of Appeals for Fairfield County.

#### Stephen A. Holtsberry v. The State of Ohio Ex Rel. Frank R. Fawver, Superintendent, Public Works of Ohio.

Decided, September 24, 1918.

*Roads*— Appropriation *of Land for*— Verdict *may be Returned by Three-Fourths of the Jury*— Burden *of Proof*— Necessity *and Purpose of the Appropriation Need 'not be Set Forth in the Certificate.*

1. In an action for appropriation of land for road purposes, tbe burden of proving tbe value of tbe land sought to be taken is upon tbe property owner.

2. 'Error does not lie in sucb a ease to failure of tbe certificate of appropriation to set forth tbe necessity of tbe appropriation or tbe purpose for which tbe land sought to be appropriated is to be used.

*Augustus A. Mithoff,*for plaintiff in error.

*Joseph McGee,*Attorney General; *John F. Kramer*and *J. U. Fultz, Prosecuting Attorney,*contra.

Houck, J.

This case is here on error from the judgment of the probate court of Fairfield county, Ohio. The parties here stand in the reverse order from where they stood in the lower court.

*352The plaintiff below brought suit to appropriate certain real estate belonging to the defendant below for road purposes. A jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff and allowed the defendant the sum of $260 as compensation for the land so taken. A motion for a new trial was overruled and a judgment entered on the verdict.

Plaintiff in error seeks a reversal of this judgment for the following reasons:

1. The court erred in charging the jury that three-fourths of its number or more might return a verdict in the case.

2. Error of the court in its charge to the jury that the burden of proof as to the value of the land, sought to be taken, was upon the land owner.

3. Error in overruling motion of defendant below to dismiss the proceedings because the certificate of appropriation failed to state that it was necessary to appropriate the real estate in question, and further that- said certificate failed to state the purpose for which the land sought to be appropriated was to be used.

As to the first claim of error this court has heretofore passed upon this question in the case of *F. B. Smith, et al.*v. *Carrie Craig, et al.,*29 O. C. A., 236, the same being adverse to the claim of plaintiff in error.

As to the second and third grounds of alleged error, will say the suit in this case was brought under and by authority of and as a special proceeding, as authorized under Sections 442 to 450, General Code.

An examination of the record in this case clearly shows that each and every step necessary to be taken by the plaintiff below, as required by said sections of our statute, was fully carried out and the judgment of the lower court is clear and free from’any prejudicial error in any way affecting the substantial rights of the plaintiff in error.

It therefore follows that the judgment of the probate court should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Powell, J., and Shields, J., concurring.
**EXHIBIT
        18**
 
 
 
 
 **CONSENT
        OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
 
 
 Utah
        Medical Products, Inc.
 
 We
        consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
        33-24781, 33-44100, 33-89394, and 33-89434 of Utah Medical Products, Inc.
        on
        Forms S-8 of our financial statement audit report and internal control over
        financial reporting audit report dated March 8, 2007, appearing in this Annual
        Report on Form 10-K of Utah Medical Products, Inc. for the years ended December
        31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.
 
 
 
 /s/
        Jones Simkins, P.C.
 
 JONES
        SIMKINS, P.C.
 Logan,
        Utah
 March
        15,
        2007
# C_2006143EN.01002401.xml

| 17.6.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Supremo lodged on 27 March 2006 — International Mail Spain SL v Administración del Estado — Correos

(Case C-162/06)

(2006/C 143/43)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Supremo

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: International Mail Spain SL

Applicant:

Defendant: Administración del Estado — Correos

Defendant:

Question referred

‘Does Article 7(2) [prior to its amendment by Directive 2002/39/EC] of Directive 97/67/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 1997 on common rules for the development of the internal market of Community postal services and the improvement of quality of service, which authorises Member States to include cross-border mail in the reserved postal services, allow them to establish that reservation only insofar as they are able to prove that, without it, the economic equilibrium of the universal service provider is at risk, or, instead, does it also allow them to retain it for other reasons, among them reasons of expediency, relating to the overall situation in the postal sector, including the degree of liberalisation in that sector at the time the reservation is decided?’

1

---

(1)  OJ L 15, 21.01.1998, p. 14.

1

---
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-50065

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

WOLFGANG ERBSTOESSER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(98-CR-141-1)

- - - - - - - - - -

October 5, 1999

Before POLITZ, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Wolfgang Erbstoesser appeals from his

se ntence following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute MDMA and cocaine, possession with

intent to distribute MDMA, and importation of MDMA. He first

argues that the district court clearly erred by at tributing one

pound of crystal methamphetamine to him as relevant conduct,

contending that evidence of the m ethamphetamine sale was

insufficiently reliable and that the sale of methamph etamine did2

not qualify as relevant conduct. He also asserts that the district

court clearly erred by applying a two-level leadership adjustment

to his sentence, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c). Factual findings

made by a sentencing court must be supported by a preponderance of

the evidence and are upheld unless clearly erroneous. U n ited

States v. McCaskey , 9 F.3d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 1993). The

sentencing court’s interpretations of the guidelines are reviewed

de novo

. Id.

Evidence of Erbstoesser’s methamphetamine sale was obtained

from interviews condu cted by DEA agents and was corroborated by

Erbstoesser’s own statements to the DEA agents. The evidence was

therefore sufficiently re l iable for sentencing purposes. S ee

United States v. Shacklett , 921 F.2d 580, 584-85 (5th Cir. 1991).

Although Erbstoesser argued a gainst the inclusion of the

methamphetamine sale as relevant conduct and the imposition of the

leadership adjustment at sentencing, he failed to present any

rebuttal evidence as to either issue. Erbstoesser has therefore

failed to show that the district court clearly erred by adopting

the PSR’s factual findings regarding these issues. S ee United

States v. Rogers

, 1 F.3d 341, 345 (5t h Cir. 1993)(no clear error

shown when defendant failed to present evidence to rebut PSR’s

finding regarding releva nt conduct). As we affirm the sentence

imposed by the district court, we need not consider Erbstoesser’s

request for a remand for the sentencing court to apply the “safety

valve provision.”

AFFIRMED.
No. 00-113 (00A180).

#### Pierson *v.*Wilshire Terrace Corp.

Ct. App. Cal., 2d App. Dist. Application for stay, addressed to The Chief Justice and referred to the Court, denied. Certio-rari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Alfacell
Corporation  Balance Sheet as of July 31, 1999 and the  Statements of Operations
for the year ended July 31, 1999 and is  qualified  in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Jul-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     Jul-31-1999
<CASH>                                             1,383,133
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   1,529,841
<PP&E>                                             1,143,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                       944,830
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     1,728,648
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                971,448
<BONDS>                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                              17,286
<OTHER-SE>                                           739,914
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       1,728,648
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     168,372
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      3,322,631
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     2,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (3,156,636)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (3,156,636)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (3,156,636)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.18)



</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 413

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 413 appear at 76 FR 50537, August 22, 2014.

#### § 413.348 Limitation on review.

Judicial or administrative review under sections 1869 or 1878 of the Act or otherwise is prohibited with regard to the establishment of the Federal rates. This prohibition includes the methodology used in the computation of the Federal standardized payment rates, the case-mix methodology, and the development and application of the wage index. This prohibition on judicial and administrative review also extends to the methodology used to establish the facility-specific rates but not to determinations related to reasonable cost in the fiscal year 1995 cost reporting period used as the basis for these rates.