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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000900392
<NAME>                        Discovery Zone, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-12-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,355
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      842
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,111
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,949
<PP&E>                                          69,379
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,344
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,518
<BONDS>                                        104,739
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,176
<PREFERRED>                                     10,917
<COMMON>                                            73
<OTHER-SE>                                     (62,614)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,344
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               125,870
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  145,513
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                41,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (103,932)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (103,932)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (103,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.52)
        


</TABLE>
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3238

To amend the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act of 1998. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 2, 2003

Mr. MEEK of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

To amend the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act 

of 1998.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘HRIFA Improvement 

5 Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO HAITIAN AND IMMIGRANT FAIR7 NESS ACT OF 1998. 

8 (a) GROUND FOR INADMISSIBILITY FOR DOCUMENT

9 FRAUD DOES NOT APPLY.—The Haitian Refugee Immi10 gration Fairness Act of 1998 (8 U.S.C. 1255 note) is 
2

•HR 3238 IH 

1 amended in subsections (a)(1)(B) and (d)(1)(D) of section 

2 902 by inserting ‘‘(6)(C)(i),’’ after ‘‘(6)(A),’’. 

3 (b) DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO CHIL4 DREN.—Section 902(d) of such Act is amended by adding 

5 at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(3) DETERMINATIONS WITH RESPECT TO

7 CHILDREN.—

8 ‘‘(A) USE OF APPLICATION FILING

9 DATE.—Determinations made under this sub10 section as to whether an individual is a child of 

11 a parent shall be made using the age and status 

12 of the individual on the date of the enactment 

13 of this section. 

14 ‘‘(B) APPLICATION SUBMISSION BY PAR15 ENT.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(C), an 

16 application under this subsection filed based on 

17 status as a child may be filed for the benefit of 

18 such child by a parent or guardian of the child, 

19 if the child is physically present in the United 

20 States on such filing date.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. NEW APPLICATIONS AND MOTIONS TO REOPEN. 

22 (a) NEW APPLICATIONS.—Notwithstanding section 

23 902(a)(1)(A) of the Haitian and Immigrant Fairness Act 

24 of 1998, an alien who is eligible for adjustment of status 

25 under such Act, as amended by section 2 of this Act, may 
3

•HR 3238 IH 

1 submit an application for adjustment of status under such 

2 Act not later than the later of—

3 (1) 2 years after the date of the enactment of 

4 this Act; and 

5 (2) 1 year after the date on which final regula6 tions implementing this Act are promulgated. 

7 (b) MOTIONS TO REOPEN.—The Secretary of Home8 land Security shall establish procedures for the reopening 

9 and reconsideration of applications for adjustment of sta10 tus under the Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act 

11 of 1998 that are affected by the amendments under sec12 tion 2 of this Act. 

13 (c) RELATIONSHIP OF APPLICATION TO CERTAIN OR14 DERS.—Section 902(a)(3) of the Haitian and Immigrant 

15 Fairness Act of 1998 shall apply to an alien present in 

16 the United States who has been ordered excluded, de17 ported, removed, or ordered to depart voluntarily, and who 

18 files an application under subsection (a), or a motion 

19 under subsection (b), in the same manner as such section 

20 902(a)(3) applied to aliens filing applications for adjust21 ment of status under such Act before April 1, 2000.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                              U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1  
<CASH>                                    72,459
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                            169,778
<ALLOWANCES>                               6,500
<INVENTORY>                               78,031
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         764,148
<PP&E>                                   871,623
<DEPRECIATION>                           497,787
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         1,304,275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    247,237
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                   9,368
<OTHER-SE>                             2,517,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           1,304,275
<SALES>                                  422,603
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         422,603
<CGS>                                    125,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            241,720
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         9,825
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           45,822
<INCOME-TAX>                              12,495
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                              33,327
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.003
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.003
        


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAURIANNE GORDON

- BROWN , Appellant,

v.

DELVIN JONES , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 780

[ September 22, 2021 ]

Appeal of a non

- final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Michael Kaplan , Judge; L.T. Case No.
DVCE20

- 004004

.

Daurianne Gordon

- Brown, Miami, pro se.

No appearance for appellee.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

P ER C URIAM

.

W e deny appellant’s motion for rehearing and clarification in response to orders filed on July 29, 2021 , but withdraw our opinion dated July 29,
202 1 , and issue the following in its place:

Affirmed

. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee , 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (“In appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to demonstrate error. . . . Without a record of the trial proceedings, the appellate court can not properly reso lve the underlying factual issues so as to conclude that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by the evidence or by an alternative theory.”).

G ROSS , C IKLIN and G ERBER , JJ

., concur.

* * *
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB (the “the Report”) of
Clearfield, Inc. a Minnesota corporation. (the “Company”), for the quarter ended
December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof  (the “Report”),  the undersigned officer of the
Company certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, that, to her knowledge




1.
            The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
and




2.
            The
      information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.




A signed
original 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.







February
13, 2008







Signature:
/s/ Cheryl Beranek
Podzimek


Print
Name: Cheryl Beranek
Podzimek


Print
Title: Chief Executive
Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 3275] 

# AGENCY:

Department of State. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority of October 19, 1999, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Spirits of the Water: Art from Alaska and British Columbia,” imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are in addition to the subject objects of a notice concerning this exhibit published under Public Notice 3268, 65 FR 16684 (March 29, 2000) and are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with Russian lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the Menil Collection, Houston, Texas, from on or about May 5, 2000 to on or about August 13, 2000 is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information, including a list of exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/619-6981). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44; 301-4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001. 

Dated: April 12, 2000. 

William B. Bader, 

Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State. 

[FR Doc. 00-10022 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4710-08-U
Section 302 Certifications                     Exhibit 31 (a)

I, James G. Rakes, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of National Bankshares, Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a - 15 (e) and 15d - 15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared; and

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluations; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: November 14, 2003

/s/ JAMES G. RAKES
-----------------------------
James G. Rakes
Chief Executive Officer
§ 614.4580 Limitation on the extension of funding, discount and other similar financial assistance to an OFI. ( a ) No obligation shall be purchased from or discounted for and no loan shall be made or other similar financial assistance extended by a Farm Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank to an OFI if the amount of such obligation added to the aggregate liabilities of such OFI, whether direct or contingent (other than *bona fide* deposit liabilities), exceeds ten times the paid-in and unimpaired capital and surplus of such OFI or the amount of such liabilities permitted under the laws of the jurisdiction creating such OFI, whichever is less.
( b ) It shall be unlawful for any national bank that is indebted to any Farm Credit Bank or agricultural credit bank, on paper discounted or purchased, to incur any additional indebtedness, if by virtue of such additional indebtedness its aggregate liabilities, direct or contingent, will exceed the limitation described in paragraph (a) of this section.
```

[House Report 106-1016]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                    106-1016

======================================================================

 
  PROVIDING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF S. 2485, THE SAINT CROIX ISLAND 
                              HERITAGE ACT

                                _______
                                

  October 29, 2000.--Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

                                _______
                                

 Mr. Diaz-Balart, from the Committee on Rules, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                       [To accompany H. Res. 663]

    The Committee on Rules, having had under consideration 
House Resolution 663, by a nonrecord vote, report the same to 
the House with the recommendation that the resolution be 
adopted.

                summary of provisions of the resolution

    The resolution provides for the consideration of H.R. 2485, 
the Saint Croix Island Heritage Act, under a closed rule. The 
rule provides one hour of debate in the House divided equally 
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on Resources.
    The rule waives all points of order against consideration 
of the bill. The rule further provides for one motion to 
recommit, with or without instructions. Finally, the rule 
provides that a concurrent resolution directing the Clerk to 
make certain corrections to the enrollment of H.R. 2614 is 
adopted.

                                  

```
# C_2020381EN.01002801.xml

| 12.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 381/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 381/28

---

State aid – Decision to raise no objections

(2020/C 381/10)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following state aid measure:

| Date of adoption of the decision | 28 July 2020 |
| --- | --- |
| Case No | 85364 |
| Decision No | 097/20/COL |
| EFTA State | Norway |
| Title | COVID-19 Compensation to Haugesund Airport |
| Legal basis | The contract between Avinor and LUD, which implements the instructions from the Ministry of Transportation and the objective of the Parliament of securing continued operations of the Norwegian airports. |
| Type of measure | Individual aid |
| Objective | To compensate the damage directly caused to LUD during the period 1 March 2020 – 31 December 2020 due to the containment measures taken as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak. |
| Form of aid | Direct grant |
| Budget | NOK 56.8 million |
| Intensity | 100 % |
| Economic sectors | Aviation |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Avinor AS |
| Postboks 150 |
| 2061 Gardermoen |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption of the decision

28 July 2020

Case No

85364

Decision No

097/20/COL

EFTA State

Norway

Title

COVID-19 Compensation to Haugesund Airport

Legal basis

The contract between Avinor and LUD, which implements the instructions from the Ministry of Transportation and the objective of the Parliament of securing continued operations of the Norwegian airports.

Type of measure

Individual aid

Objective

To compensate the damage directly caused to LUD during the period 1 March 2020 – 31 December 2020 due to the containment measures taken as a consequence of the COVID-19 outbreak.

Form of aid

Direct grant

Budget

NOK 56.8 million

Intensity

100 %

Economic sectors

Aviation

Name and address of the granting authority

Avinor AS

Postboks 150

2061 Gardermoen

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found on the EFTA Surveillance Authority’s website: http://www.eftasurv.int/state-aid/state-aid-register/decisions/

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7274

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND G. GERTH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Fayetteville. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-28-3, CA-97-944-5-H)

Submitted: December 30, 1998 Decided: March 9, 1999

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond G. Gerth, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Skiver, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In support of its motion for summary judgment, the

Government included an affidavit by Gerth’s counsel, Jeffrey L.

Starkweather, addressing Gerth’s ineffective assistance claims.

(R. 51, Ex. B). The affidavit does not indicate that the

attorney’s statement was made under the penalty of perjury.

Further, the notary’s attestation clause recites that “William E.

Scott,” not Starkweather, appeared before her.

2

PER CURIAM

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. While summary judgment on Appellant’s

ineffective assistance of counsel claims should not have been based

upon an improperly sworn affidavit,* summary judgment was nevertheless properly granted on all such claims. We dismiss the balance of Appellant’s claims on the reasoning of the district court.

United States v. Gerth, No. CR-93-28-3; CA-97-944-5-H (E.D.N.C.

Aug. 6, 1998). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability. We also deny Appellant’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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