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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,557
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             286
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 4,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     10,314
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          25,242
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            25,197
<LOANS>                                         88,186
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,007
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 139,877
<DEPOSITS>                                     126,132
<SHORT-TERM>                                       750
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,028
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,310
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,657
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 139,877
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  8,638
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,506
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   356
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                11,500
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               4,225
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,253
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            7,247
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      120
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  5,673
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,293
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,293
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,350
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.28
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    9.00
<LOANS-NON>                                        109
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   944
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      108
<RECOVERIES>                                        51
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,007
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               858
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            149


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 11 (Tuesday, January 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2611-2612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1065]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6525-9]


Effluent Guidelines Task Force Open Meeting

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION:  Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY:  The Effluent Guidelines Task Force, an EPA advisory 
committee, will hold a meeting to discuss the Agency's Effluent 
Guidelines Program. The meeting is open to the public.

DATES:  The meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 25, 2000 from 9:00 
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Wednesday, January 26, 2000 from 8:30 a.m. to 
3:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES:  The meeting will take place at the Hotel Washington, 515 
15th Street, NW, Washington, DC (Capital Room).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION:  Beverly Randolph, Office of Water (4303), 401 
M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460; telephone (202) 260-5373; fax 
(202) 260-7185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Environmental Protection Agency gives notice 
of a meeting of the Effluent Guidelines Task Force (EGTF). The EGTF is 
a subcommittee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental 
Policy and Technology (NACEPT), the external policy advisory board to 
the Administrator of EPA.
    The EGTF was established in July of 1992 to advise EPA on the 
Effluent Guidelines Program, which develops regulations for dischargers 
of industrial wastewater pursuant to Title III of the Clean Water Act 
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). The Task Force consists of members appointed 
by EPA from industry, citizen groups, state and local government, the 
academic and scientific communities, and EPA regional offices. The Task

[[Page 2612]]

Force was created to offer advice to the Administrator on the long-term 
strategy for the effluent guidelines program, and particularly to 
provide recommendations on a process for expediting the promulgation of 
effluent guidelines. The Task Force generally does not discuss specific 
effluent guideline regulations currently under development.
    The meeting is open to the public, and limited seating for the 
public is available on a first-come, first-served basis. The public may 
submit written comments to the Task Force regarding improvements to the 
Effluent Guidelines Program. Comments should be sent to Beverly 
Randolph at the above address. Comments submitted by January 21, 2000 
will be considered by the Task Force at or subsequent to the meeting.

    Dated: January 11, 2000.
Geoffrey H. Grubbs,
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 00-1065 Filed 1-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
#### § 1259.404 Suspension or termination of designation.

The Administrator or designee, Director, NASA Space Grant Program, may, for cause, after an opportunity for a hearing before a Federal administrative judge appointed by the Deputy Administrator, suspend or terminate the Space Grant designation of any institution or consortium.

[82 FR 35441, July 31, 2017]
#### BOST v. BLOCK.

No. 31689.

March 6, 1945.

*156 P. 2d 610.*

John A. Goodall, of Stilwell, for plaintiff in error.

Remington Rogers, of Tulsa, for defendant in error.

CORN, J.

Irving Block, plaintiff, alleged that W. C. Bost, defendant, as maker, drew and delivered to the payee a $395 check payable to the order of George C. Adams, attorney; that payee indorsed and delivered this check to plaintiff, who cashed it at its full face value, in due course. Check was duly presented for payment and dishonored.

Bost’s answer was that the check *199which he had issued to one George C. Adams, attorney, was issued for a specific purpose, to wit: “To be used as bond premium expense in closing Raymond Jackson case.”

Block filed a demurrer to the amended answer, which was sustained. Bost elected not to plead further and judgment was rendered against him.

The defendant contends Block was placed on notice by the memorandum placed on the check, to wit: “To be used as bond premium expense in closing Raymond Jackson case.”

The check as presented to, and cashed by, plaintiff contained on its face the following language: “To be used as expense closing Raymond Jackson case.”

In Oklahoma State Bank of Ada v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co., 169 Okla. 116, 36 P. 2d 43, we held:

> “It is well settled that a note or bill, otherwise negotiable, is not rendered nonnegotiable by the insertion therein of a reference to the transaction out of which it arose, or the recital of the consideration for which it was given. Slaughter v. Bank of Bisbee, 17 Ariz. 484, 154 P. 1040; People’s Bank v. Moore, 201 Ala. 411, 78 So. 789; Ridgley Nat. Bank v. Patton, 109 Ill. 479.”

Such memorandum did not impose on plaintiff any duty of inquiry or investigation. See 8 American Jurisprudence, 140, par. 402:

> “The cases generally hold that memoranda on checks describing the funds and the source from which they come, or the payment intended by the check, do not act as a notification to a bank, or other person discounting them, of any facts which it is bound to investigate.”

The answer of the defendant as amended was to the effect that the check contained the language, “To be used as bond premium expense in closing Raymond Jackson case.” The only alteration contended for by defendant is the elimination of the words “bond premium.”

There is no allegation in defendant’s answer that plaintiff took part in the alteration or had any knowledge of facts or circumstances to put him on notice.

> “But when an instrument has been materially altered and is in the hands of a holder in due course, not a party to the alteration, he may enforce payment thereof according to its original tenor.” O.S. 1941, Title 48, sec. 266.

Even if the alleged alteration was material, which we do not hold, under the above statute, and answer of the defendant, plaintiff could still recover.

It having been called to our attention that a supersedeas bond was given in this case, and requesting this court to render judgment thereon, judgment is therefore rendered upon same against the principal and sureties.

Judgment affirmed.

HURST, V.C.J., and OSBORN, BAY-LESS, and DAVISON, JJ., concur.
#### Walker *v.*The State.

*Violating Prohibition Law.*

(Decided February 5, 1914.

64 South. 528.)

1. *Witnesses; Cross-Examination; Discretion.*— On the cross-examination of a witness, great latitude may be allowed to test the accuracy, veracity or credibility of the witness, and this matter rests largely in the discretion of the court, no abuse of such discretion being shown in the present case.

2. *Intoxicating Liquors; Jury Question.*— Under the evidence in this case the guilt of defendant was a question for the determination of a jury, and he was not entitled to have a verdict directed for him.

Appeal from Coffee Circuit Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Pearce.

J. T. Walker was convicted of violating the prohibition law, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

O. C. Doster, Jr., for appellant.

Counsel discuss the matters assigned as error, but without citation of authority.

R. C. Brickell, Attorney General, and T. H. Seay, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

A predicate must be laid to show contradictory statements of *witness.*— McDaniel *v. State,*166 Ala. 7. No abuse of discretion is shoivn in the cross-examination of the wit*206ness *Watts.*— Thompson *v. State,*100 Alá. 70; *Amos v. State,*96 Ala. 120. The evidence was in conflict and defendant was not entitled to the affirmative charge. *■*— Turner *v. State,*99 Ala. 57.

PELHAM, J.

There was no abuse of the court’s discretion in permitting the state’s counsel, on cross-examination of the defendant’s witness Watts, to ask him if he was not a detective, or in refusing to exclude his answer, “I have been.” This was a matter largely in the. discretion of the trial court, in which latitude may be allowed, even to the extent of sometimes permitting irrelevant questions to test the accuracy, veracity, or character for credibility of the *witness.*— Thompson *v. State,*100 Ala. 70, 14 South. 878; *Amos v. State,*96 Ala. 120, 11 South. 424.

The evidence was in conflict, and the court properly submitted the question of defendant’s guilt of the crime charged to the jury, and refused the general charge requested in writing by the defendant.

Other matters presented are not insisted upon by counsel for defendant in brief, and are not of suflfticient merit to justify discussion.

Affirmed.
#### F. J. LEONARD v. E. J. SCHMIDT.1

January 26, 1917.

Nos. 20,113—(245).

New trial.

Action • for assault and battery. Verdict for defendant. Appeal from order denying a new trial. *Held:*The verdict was not so palpably contrary to the evidence as to require a new trial. [Reporter.]

*471Action in the district court for Scott county to recover $500 for assault and battery. The ease was tr-ied before Morrison, J., and a jury which returned a verdict in favor of defendant. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*F. J. Leonard, pro se.*

*J. J. Moriarty,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 160 N. W. 1034.

Pee Cueiam.

Plaintiff brought this action to recover damages for an assault and battery. The jury returned a verdict for defendant, and plaintiff appealed from an order denying a new trial. We find no reversible errors in the charge of the court nor in the rulings made at the trial, and the verdict is not so palpably contrary to the .evidence as to require a new trial.

Order affrmed.
#### § 121.553 Restriction or suspension of operation: Supplemental operations.

When a certificate holder conducting supplemental operations or pilot in command knows of conditions, including airport and runway conditions, that are a hazard to safe operations, the certificate holder or pilot in command, as the case may be, shall restrict or suspend operations until those conditions are corrected.

[Doc. No. 28154, 61 FR 2613, Jan. 26, 1996]
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

 **Certification of the Chief Executive Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Mack I. Whittle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of The South Financial Group, Inc. (“TSFG”) certify that to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 of TSFG (the “Report”): 

 

(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 TSFG. 

 

 

*/s/ Mack I Whittle, Jr.*

Mack I. Whittle, Jr.

Chief Executive Officer

The South Financial Group, Inc.

May 9, 2006

 

  

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 South Financial Group, Inc. and will be retained by The South Financial Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 602.13 Fee waiver.

We may waive or reduce fees if disclosure is not mostly in your commercial interest but, instead, is in the public interest because it will advance public understanding of the Federal government's operations or activities.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C.
SECTION1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Gamma Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Joseph Cunningham,
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
      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 Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








/S/
      Joseph CunninghamJoseph
      CunninghamChief
      Financial OfficerJuly
      14, 2009
1 Supplemental M a t erial

Chronic (

xposure to )

ine 3 articles and 0 ortality: $ n ( xtended ) ollow- 8 p of the Harvard Six C ities Study from 1974 to 2009

Johanna Lepeule, Francine Laden, Douglas Dockery, Joel Schwartz.

Table of contents:

Supplemental Material, Table 1: Association between different PM 2.5 moving averages and mortality among participants who survived at least 5 years after enrolment (n=7805 participants, 180106 person-years 4209 deaths), Harvard Six Cities study, 1974-2009.

Supplemental Material, Figure 1: The estimated concentration-response fonction and 95%
confidence interval between PM 2.5 and mortality in the Six Cities Study (1974-2009), using penalized splines.2

Supplemental Material, Table 1: Association between different PM 2.5 moving averages and mortality among participants who survived at least 5 years after enrolment (n=7805 participants, 180106 person-years 4209 deaths), Harvard Six Cities study, 1974-2009. Cox regression a Poisson regression b

Cause of
death PM 2.5

moving

average (years) Rate Ratio

(95%CI) AIC Rate Ratio (95%CI) AIC

All-cause 1 1.15 (1.06-1.24) 31161.772 1.14 (1.05-1.23) 42347.57 1-2 1.15 (1.06-1.23) 31161.996 1.13 (1.05-1.22) 42347.94 1-3 1.14 (1.06-1.23) 31161.907 1.13 (1.05-1.21) 42347.92 1-4 1.13 (1.05-1.21) 31162.989 1.12 (1.04-1.20) 42348.95 1-5 1.13 (1.05-1.21) 31162.675 1.12 (1.04-1.20) 42348.74

Cardiovascular 1 1.32 (1.17-1.48) 12369.478 1.31 (1.17-1.47) 19739.23

1-2 1.31 (1.17-1.47) 12369.591 1.31 (1.17-1.46) 19739.20 1-3 1.30 (1.16-1.45) 12369.546 1.30 (1.16-1.45) 19739.16 1-4 1.29 (1.15-1.43) 12370.363 1.28 (1.15-1.43) 19740.06 1-5 1.28 (1.15-1.42) 12370.088 1.27 (1.15-1.41) 19739.84

Lung

cancer 1 1.28 (0.97-1.69) 2229.420 1.38 (1.06-1.80) 4751.03

1-2 1.29 (0.98-1.70) 2229.091 1.40 (1.07-1.82) 4750.41
1-3 1.29 (0.99-1.69) 2229.013 1.39 (1.07-1.80) 4750.51 1-4 1.26 (0.97-1.64) 2229.490 1.35 (1.05-1.74) 4751.18 1-5 1.24 (0.96-1.61) 2229.696 1.33 (1.03-1.70) 4751.61

COPD 1 1.18 (0.83-1.67) 1568.151 1.12 (0.81-1.56) 3600.23 1-2 1.18 (0.84-1.68) 1568.122 1.13 (0.81-1.58) 3600.20 1-3 1.16 (0.83-1.64) 1568.248 1.11 (0.80-1.54) 3600.32 1-4 1.17 (0.84-1.63) 1568.166 1.11 (0.81-1.53) 3600.28

1-5 1.17 (0.85-1.62) 1568.105 1.11 (0.81-1.51) 3600.29
AIC: Akaike Information Criterion
Results in bold are those with the lowest AIC value.

a Cox proportional hazard model stratified by sex, age, and time in the study and adjusted for body mass index, education, and smoking history

b Poisson survival analysis adjusted for sex, age, body mass index, education, smoking history, and time in the study (dummy variables for each year)3

Supplemental Material, Figure 1: The estimated concentration-response fonction and 95%
confidence interval between PM 2.5 and mortality in the Six Cities Study (1974-2009), using penalized splines.Log hazard ratioLog hazard ratio

10 15 20 25 30 35 40Log hazard ratio

PM 2.5 (μg/m 3 )-moving average

1 -3 years 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

PM 2.5 (μg/m 3 )-lag 1 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
PM 2.5 (μg/m 3 )-moving average

1 -3 years All cause mortality Cardiovascular mortality

Lung cancer mortality
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE>  5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          36,832
<SECURITIES>                                22,742,399
<RECEIVABLES>                                  403,383
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              23,182,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          415,020
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  22,767,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                23,182,614
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,893
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       80
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 93,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                    93,812
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             93,812
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    93,812
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       87
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)


     In connection with the Report of HST Global, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ron Howell, Interim
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:

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

                                   Date: May 17, 2011

                                   \s\ Ron Howell
                                   --------------
                                   Ron Howell
                                   Interim Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL 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 his 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/ Bruce G.
Blackey


Print
Name: Bruce G.
Blackey


Print
Title: Chief Financial
Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### §§ 628.12-628.19 [Reserved]