alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2900

2950

2950

2850

2900

2900

2950

3000

2850

2900

2950

2900

2900

2850

3000

2900

3000

2900

2950

2950

2950

2900

2900

2900

2950

2900

2900

2900

2900

2900

2950

2950

2950

2900

2900

2950

2850

2850

2850

2900

2950

G

OVE 28 G

OVE 24

CO RD 36

3RD ST

CO RD C

GOVE EE

CAMPAS RD

CO RD 37

OP216

G

OVE 28 G

OVE 24

CO RD 36

3RD ST

CO RD C

GOVE EE

CAMPAS RD

CO RD 37

OP216

North Fork Saline River

North Fork Saline River

South

Fork

Saline

River

Spring

Brook

Creek

Saline

River

Saline River

Saline River

Spring Brook Creek

Angelus

Campus

Immaculate

Conception

Cemetery

Saint John

Cemetery

Grinnell

Grinnell

Grinnell

Cemetery

43

34

43

36

43

37

43

38

43

39

43

40

43

41

43

42

43

43

43

44

43

33

43

45000mN

43

33

43

34

43

35

43

36

43

37

43

38

43

39

43

40

43

41

43

42

43

43

43

44

43

32000mN

43

45

3

50 351 352 353 354 355 357 358 3

49 359000m

E

3

50 351 352 353 354 355 356 358 3

49000mE 3

59

540 000FEET

340 000

FEET

10'

12'30"

10'

12'30"

42'30" 40'

100°45' 42'30"

100°45'

39°15' 39°15'

100°37'30"

100°37'30"

39°07'30" 39°07'30"

560 000FEET

310000

FEET

40'

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

GRINNELL NORTH, KS

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

WX Interstate Route /. US Route H State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

GRINNELL NORTH QUADRANGLE

KANSAS

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 14S

Imagery.......................................................NAIP, July 2008

Roads..............National Transportation Dataset, 2005 - 2008

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2008

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2006

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: Kansas Coordinate System of 1983

(north zone)

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is also draft version 0.5.10

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

×

Ù

MN

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 4 ́

19 MILS

6° 35 ́

117 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

14S

LJ

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

Grinnell

South

Oakley

South

Oakley

North

Grinnell

North

Halford Seguin

Sunny

Slope Lake

Grinnell NE

Menlo

KANSAS
2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

9-15-2005

USA v. Fallon

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 03-4184

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Fallon" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 476.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/476
 PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 03-4184

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAMES C. FALLON,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

D.C. Criminal No. 02-cr-00324

(Honorable James T. Giles)

Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge,SLOVITER, ALITO, ROTH, McKEE, RENDELL,

BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, VAN ANTWERPEN, 

and ROSENN, Circuit Judges

O R D E R

A majority of the active judges having voted for rehearing en banc in the

above appeal, it is ordered that the Clerk of this Court list the above case for rehearing en

banc at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 1, 2005.

BY THE COURT,

/s/ Anthony J. Scirica 

Chief Judge

DATED: September 15, 2005

RLS/cc: RE

 DF
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**CERTIFICATION**


**OF**


**PRINCIPAL
      EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**AND**


**PRINCIPAL
      FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C.1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








I,
      John
      Z. Ferguson, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





I,
      Thomas
      Costanza, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of a21, Inc. for the quarter ended June 30,
      2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of a21, Inc.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.








By:
                /s/ JOHN Z. FERGUSON
              John
                Z. Ferguson
              Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)
              
              
              By:
                /s/ THOMAS COSTANZA
              Thomas
                Costanza
              Vice
                President and Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
                Financial Officer)
              
              Dated:
                December 12,
                2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                        129,428 
<SECURITIES>                                   50,000 
<RECEIVABLES>                              15,732,130 
<ALLOWANCES>                                1,007,243 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           20,157,536       
<PP&E>                                     28,258,554      
<DEPRECIATION>                             10,776,931    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             38,385,227      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      17,053,344    
<BONDS>                                             0  
<COMMON>                                    4,483,129 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<OTHER-SE>                                  6,042,081       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               38,385,227         
<SALES>                                    83,795,562          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           83,795,562          
<CGS>                                      48,182,885          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              48,182,885          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           27,214,729       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          1,214,445       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             7,384,656       
<INCOME-TAX>                                3,107,000      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         4,277,656      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                4,277,656 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .57 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .55 
        


</TABLE>
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 25 November 2004

(2004/C 289/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### § 530.2 Restriction of homework.

Except as provided in subpart B of this part, no work in the industries defined in paragraphs (e) through (k) of § 530.1 shall be done in or about a home, apartment, tenement, or room in a residential establishment unless a special homework certificate issued and in effect pursuant to this part has been obtained for each homeworker or unless the homeworker is so engaged under the supervision of a Sheltered Workshop, as defined in § 525.2 of this chapter.

[53 FR 45722, Nov. 10, 1988]
(77 South. 1003)

#### DU BOSE v. STATE.

(5 Div. 253.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 27, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Chilton County; Gas-ton Gunter, Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# Úřední věstník C 198/5. s

| | ISSN 1725-5163 |
| --- | --- |
| Úřední věstník
  Evropské unie | C 198 |
| | |
| České vydání | Informace a oznámení | Svazek 475. srpna 2004 |

ISSN 1725-5163

Úřední věstník

Evropské unie

C 198

České vydání

Informace a oznámení

Svazek 475. srpna 2004

---

| Oznámeníč. | Obsah | Strana |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Informace |
| | Komise |
| 2004/C 198/1 | Směnné kurzy vůči euro | 1 |

Oznámeníč.

Obsah

Strana

I   Informace

Komise

2004/C 198/1

Směnné kurzy vůči euro

1

| CS | |
| --- | --- |

CS

---

I Informace

Komise

| 5.8.2004 | CS | Úřední věstník Evropské unie | C 198/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2004

CS

Úřední věstník Evropské unie

C 198/1

---

Směnné kurzy vůči euro (1)

4. srpna 2004

(2004/C 198/01)

1 euro=

| | měna | směnný kurz |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | americký dolar | 1,1983 |
| JPY | japonský jen | 133,72 |
| DKK | dánská koruna | 7,4352 |
| GBP | britská libra | 0,65960 |
| SEK | švédská koruna | 9,1938 |
| CHF | švýcarský frank | 1,5394 |
| ISK | islandská koruna | 86,33 |
| NOK | norská koruna | 8,4145 |
| BGN | bulharský lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | kyperská libra | 0,57940 |
| CZK | česká koruna | 31,769 |
| EEK | estonská koruna | 15,6466 |
| HUF | maďarský forint | 250,14 |
| LTL | litevský litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | lotyšský latas | 0,6527 |
| MTL | maltská lira | 0,4245 |
| PLN | polský zlotý | 4,4350 |
| ROL | rumunský lei | 40 954 |
| SIT | slovinský tolar | 240,0100 |
| SKK | slovenská koruna | 40,120 |
| TRL | turecká lira | 1 782 400 |
| AUD | australský dolar | 1,7079 |
| CAD | kanadský dolar | 1,5844 |
| HKD | hongkongský dolar | 9,3465 |
| NZD | novozélandský dolar | 1,8624 |
| SGD | singapurský dolar | 2,0667 |
| KRW | jihokorejský won | 1 399,08 |
| ZAR | jihoamerický rand | 7,5483 |

měna

směnný kurz

USD

americký dolar

1,1983

JPY

japonský jen

133,72

DKK

dánská koruna

7,4352

GBP

britská libra

0,65960

SEK

švédská koruna

9,1938

CHF

švýcarský frank

1,5394

ISK

islandská koruna

86,33

NOK

norská koruna

8,4145

BGN

bulharský lev

1,9558

CYP

kyperská libra

0,57940

CZK

česká koruna

31,769

EEK

estonská koruna

15,6466

HUF

maďarský forint

250,14

LTL

litevský litas

3,4528

LVL

lotyšský latas

0,6527

MTL

maltská lira

0,4245

PLN

polský zlotý

4,4350

ROL

rumunský lei

40 954

SIT

slovinský tolar

240,0100

SKK

slovenská koruna

40,120

TRL

turecká lira

1 782 400

AUD

australský dolar

1,7079

CAD

kanadský dolar

1,5844

HKD

hongkongský dolar

9,3465

NZD

novozélandský dolar

1,8624

SGD

singapurský dolar

2,0667

KRW

jihokorejský won

1 399,08

ZAR

jihoamerický rand

7,5483

---

(1)

Zdroj: referenční směnné kurzy jsou publikovány ECB.

---
Argued and submitted July 17,

affirmed December 30, 1992,

reconsideration denied February 24,

petition for review denied March 23, 1993 (315 Or 643)

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*ANTHONY CHARLES BOWERS, *Appellant.*

(C891431CR; CA A69004 (Control), A69076)

(Cases Consolidated)

842 P2d 819

Wayne Mackeson, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Des Connall, P.C., Portland.

Douglas F. Zier, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Charles S. Crookham, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Deits and Durham, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*536PER CURIAM

Defendant appeals convictions, after a jury trial, on one count of sodomy in the first degree, ORS 163.405, five counts of sexual abuse in the first degree, ORS 163.427, and one count of furnishing obscene material to a minor. ORS 167.065.

He argues that each count of the indictment is subject to demurrer on the ground that the Statute of Limitations had expired before the indictment was returned. He raises the limitation issue for the first time on appeal. That is too late. We decline to address that claim of error.

The other assignments of error do not warrant discussion.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LESCARDEN
INC'S MAY 31, 2000 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-2000
<CASH>                                          43,449
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,532
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     99,880
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               214,861
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 214,861
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          213,213
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,840
<COMMON>                                        22,319
<OTHER-SE>                                    (22,511)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   214,861
<SALES>                                        346,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               434,581
<CGS>                                          218,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,040,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (606,086)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (606,086)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (606,086)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.03)


</TABLE>
(75 South. 1006)

#### McGOUGH v. STATE.

(6 Div. 263.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 8, 1917.)

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Walker County; T. L. Sowell, Judge.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, P. J.

Appeal dismissed.
#### § 778.328 Plan for gradual permanent reduction in schedule.

In some cases, pursuant to a definite plan for the permanent reduction of the normal scheduled workweek from say, 48 hours to 40 hours, an agreement is entered into with a view to lessening the shock caused by the expected reduction in take-home wages. The agreement may provide for a rising scale of rates as the workweek is gradually reduced. The varying rates established by such agreement will be recognized as bona fide in the weeks in which they are respectively operative provided that (a) the plan is bona fide and there is no effort made to evade the overtime requirements of the Act; (b) there is a clear downward trend in the duration of the workweek throughout the period of the plan even though fluctuations from week-to-week may not be constantly downward; and (c) the various rates are operative for substantial periods under the plan and do not vary from week-to-week in accordance with the number of hours which any particular employee or group happens to work.
### UNPUBLISHED



# UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT



#  U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA ,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 00-4655



# 
D WIGHT D ELINOR E PPS ,

Defendant-Appellant. 

# 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge.

(CR-00-11) Submitted: April 24, 2001 Decided: May 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

COUNSEL J. Christopher Clemens, Sr., CLEMENS & CLEMENS, P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P. Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney,Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).OPINION
PER CURIAM: Dwight Delinor Epps appeals his conviction and sentence of seventy-seven months’ imprisonment for the strong arm robbery of John Crenshaw in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2111 (1994). Epps challenges the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the conviction. We review the record in the light most favorable to the government to determine if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. Glasser v. United States , 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). Circumstantial as well as direct evidence is considered, and the government is allowed the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established. See United States v. Tresvant , 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). We have reviewed the record and affirm the conviction and sentence.Epps and Crenshaw are patients of the Salem Veterans Administration Medical Center. A volunteer observed Epps speak sternly to Crenshaw, lead him into the men’s restroom by placing a hand on the back of Crenshaw’s neck and a hand on his arm, and shove Crenshaw against a wall. The volunteer then observed Crenshaw withdrawinghis billfold and giving Epps five dollars. Government witnesses testified that Epps is a large, overbearing man, while Crenshaw is a timid, gentle man who often does not speak. Crenshaw testified he had given Epps $605 over the previous months. Crenshaw testified he did notwant to give Epps money, but was afraid Epps would reach into Crenshaw’s pocket and take it himself. Following Epps’ arrest, Epps’ lawyer tendered a check for $605 to Crenshaw and asked him to sign an affidavit stating the monies taken by Epps were loans and had been repaid in full. Epps argues the evidence is insufficient to establish a robbery by force or threat of force. He further contends the exchanged funds were loans that have now been repaid in full. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we find the evidence of intimidation and force to be sufficient to support Epps’ conviction. We therefore affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the 2 U NITED S TATES v. E PPSfacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3 U NITED S TATES v. E PPS
(75 South. 1005)

#### GARGIS v. STATE.

(8 Div. 495.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 29, 1917.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Colbert County; C. P. Almon, Judge.

W. D. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
----

Initiation of proceedings

(Case COMP/M.3423 — RWA/AMI/INTER-FERT (JV))

(2004/C 248/05)

On 29 September 2004 the Commission decided to initiate proceedings in the abovementioned case after finding that the notified concentration raises serious doubts as to its compatibility with the common market. The initiation of proceedings opens a second phase investigation with regard to the notified concentration. The decision is based on Article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1).

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their observations on the proposed concentration to the Commission.

In order to be fully taken into account in the procedure, observations should reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (fax No (32-2) 296 43 01 – 296 72 44) or by post, under reference COMP/M.3423 — RWA/AMI/INTER-FERT (JV), to the following address:

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
#### § 780.721 Employment in the particular workweek as test of exemption.

The period for determining whether the “area of production” requirement of section 13(b)(14) is met is prescribed in the regulations in part 536 of this chapter. Whether or not an establishment is one commonly recognized as a country elevator must be tested by general functions and attributes over a representative period of time, as previously explained, and requires reexamination for exemption purposes only if these change. But insofar as the exemption depends for its application on the employment of employees, it applies on a workweek basis. An employee employed by the establishment is not exempt in any workweek when more than five employees “are employed in the establishment in such operations,” as previously explained (see §§ 780.712 through 780.715). Nor is any employee within the exemption in a workweek when he is not employed “by” the establishment within the meaning of section 13(b)(14) (see §§ 780.716 through 780.719). This is in accordance with the general rule that the unit of time to be used in determining the application of the Act and its exemptions to an employee is the workweek. (See *Overnight Motor Transportation Co.* v. *Missel,* 316 U.S. *Mitchell* v. *Hunt,* 263 F. 2d 913; *McComb* v. *Puerto Rico Tobacco Marketing Co-op. Ass'n,* 80 F. Supp. 953, affirmed 181 F. 2d 697.) A workweek is a fixed and regularly recurring interval of seven consecutive 24-hour periods. It may begin at any hour of any day set by the employer and need not coincide with the calendar week. Once the workweek has been set it commences each succeeding week on the same day and at the same hour. Changing the workweek for the purpose of escaping the requirements of the Act is not permitted.
EXHIBIT 99.2
                                  ------------

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


The undersigned, the Chief Financial Officer of Troy Financial Corporation (the
"Company") hereby certifies that to his knowledge on the date hereof:

(c)  the Form 10-Q of the Company for the three month period ended December 31,
     2002 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission
     (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(d)  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the
     Company.

                              /s/ David J. DeLuca
                              -------------------
                               David J. DeLuca
                               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                               February 14, 2003


                                       23