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>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                            3887
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            1550
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      73976
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            4157
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              4122
<LOANS>                                         127925
<ALLOWANCE>                                        590
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  215938
<DEPOSITS>                                      132718
<SHORT-TERM>                                      4282
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               6374
<LONG-TERM>                                      14000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            46
<OTHER-SE>                                       58517
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  215938
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   9798
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 4430
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   281
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 14509
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                6650
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                7024
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             7484
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       20
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   2927
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   4765
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                        3037
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3037
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .63
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.08
<LOANS-NON>                                        969
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   572
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        2
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  590
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            590
        

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

***CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002***

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of American Science & Engineering, Inc., aMassachusetts corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge and belief, that:

 

(1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterended December 31, 2004 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Company fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and

 

(2) the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operationsof the Company at the dates and for the periods presented in this report.

 

 
|  /s/ Kenneth J. Galaznik                |   |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Kenneth J. Galaznik                          |   |
| Treasurer and Acting Chief Financial Officer |   |
|                                         |   |
| February 3, 2005                             |   |

 

1

----
VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 23-AP-156

109 State Street

Montpelier VT 05609-0801

802-828-4774

www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a crossappellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

OCTOBER TERM, 2023

M.J.* v. L.C.S.D. } APPEALED FROM:

} Superior Court, Lamoille Unit, Civil Division

} CASE NO. 23-CV-00304

Trial Judge: Daniel Richardson

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Plaintiff appeals pro se from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief can be granted. We affirm. 

In its dismissal order, the court found that plaintiff was a serial filer from the State of

Delaware who had made similar and repetitive claims in various jurisdictions. Plaintiff had filed 

approximately 100 complaints in courts throughout the Northeast, which were all dismissed at an 

early stage. Plaintiff had been sanctioned for his behavior. The court described plaintiff’s 

allegations as “rambling and often incoherent with odd references to stem cells, death, re-birth, 

regrowth of body parts, and viruses.” The court concluded that, putting aside the dubious nature 

of his claims, plaintiff’s complaint did not survive a basic legal analysis under Vermont Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Plaintiff identifies no discernable or persuasive basis to overturn the trial court’s decision. 

See Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Vt. 160, 164 n* (1992) (explaining that Supreme Court will not 

address contentions so inadequately briefed as to fail to minimally meet standards of V.R.A.P. 

28(a)). Aside from a summary sentence, the statements in his brief do not appear to relate to the 

merits of the decision on appeal. As we have often repeated, “[i]t is the burden of the appellant 

to demonstrate how the lower court erred warranting reversal” and “[w]e will not comb the 
2

record searching for error.” In re S.B.L., 150 Vt. 294, 297 (1988). Plaintiff fails to show any 

basis to disturb the court’s dismissal order here. 

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 121 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38831-38832]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-15701]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of Banks 
or Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12

[[Page 38832]]

CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that 
are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of 
the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than July 6, 2000.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Phillip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. Michael Robert Reese, Appleton, Wisconsin; to retain voting 
shares of Fox River Valley Bancorp, Inc., Appleton, Wisconsin, and 
thereby indirectly retain voting shares of First Business Bank of Fox 
River Valley, Appleton, Wisconsin.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 16, 2000.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 00-15701 Filed 6-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
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.                  

###### Legal Services Corporation

# dated:

June 15, 2000. 

# SPECIAL NEEDS:

Upon request, meeting notices will be made available in alternate formats to accommodate visual and hearing impairments. Individuals who have a disability and need an accommodation to attend the meeting may notify Shannon Nicko Adaway, at (202) 336-8800. 

Dated: June 15, 2000.

Victor M. Fortuno, 

Vice President for Legal Affairs, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-15711 Filed 6-16-00; 3:47 pm] 

BILLING CODE 7050-01-P
#### § 109-26.501-4 Submission of orders.

An original and two copies of requisitions for passenger motor vehicles and law enforcement motor vehicles shall be forwarded with justification for purchase to the Office of Management, for approval and submission to GSA. Requisitions for all other types of motor vehicles shall be submitted directly to GSA.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

May 6, 2019
No. 04

- 19

- 00168

- CV IN THE INTEREST OF Y.M.L., A CHILD, From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- PA

- 02836 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R In this accelerated appeal of the February 28, 2019 o r der terminating a ppellant Dad ’s parental rights, Appellant’s brief wa s due to be filed with this court on May 6, 2019

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(a). Before the due date , Appellant filed a motion for a twenty

- day extension of time to file Appellant’s brief

. A ppellant’s motion is GRANTED. Appellant Dad ’s brief is due on May 2 8 , 201 9

. Any further motion for extension of time to file the brief is discouraged. S ee T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2 (directing courts of appeals to dispose of parental rights termination suits “[w]ithin 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed”).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 6th day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE , Clerk of Court
Further, because we dismiss this appeal, appellant need not file the civil

proper person appeal statement or transcript request form mailed to him on July 18,2014.

It is so ORDERED. J. 

### -rbou.sz tr e, J. Parraguirre Saitta cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge James Michael Tartisel Samantha R. Blackford Samantha R. Tartisel Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A eb



# . 417:71tait==i1EIS
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, James W.
Green, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: December 10, 2009



| |  |  |  |                                      
| |  |  |  | -------------------------------------
| |  |  |  | /s/ James W. Green                   
| |  |  |  |                                      
| |  |  |  | James W. Green                       
| |  |  |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
| |  |  |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
No. 11-9247.

#### Safeeullah, aka Strickland, aka Ogelsby *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8
(Registration Nos. 333-06784, 333-08146, 333-11842, 333-09350, 333-11154, 333-13686,
333-111112, 333-111113, 333-134355, 333-144589 and 333-145981) and on Form F-3
(Registration Nos. 333-07130, 333-07266, 333-07740, 333-12996, 333-12350, 333-109766 and
333-127883) of our reports dated April 14, 2008, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of NICE-Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting of NICE-Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries included
in theAnnual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2007.

|Tel Aviv, IsraelApril 14, 2008 |  | /s/ KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERER

KOST, FORER, GABBAY & KASIERERA Member of Ernst & Young Global
|------------------------------ |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

---
#### § 102-41.70 Are transfers of forfeited personal property reimbursable?

Recipient agencies do not pay for the property. However, you may charge the recipient agency all costs you incurred in storing, packing, loading, preparing for shipment, and transporting the property. If there are commercial charges incident to forfeiture prior to the transfer, the recipient agency must pay these charges when billed by the commercial organization. Any payment due to lien holders or other lawful claimants under a judicial forfeiture must be made in accordance with provisions of the court decree.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDING AUGUST 31, 1996 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,908
<SECURITIES>                                     4,335
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,079
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (178)
<INVENTORY>                                      7,082
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,332
<PP&E>                                          17,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,303)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  36,610
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,768
<BONDS>                                          7,657
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,309
<COMMON>                                         2,103
<OTHER-SE>                                      11,525
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    36,610
<SALES>                                         13,333
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,592
<CGS>                                            8,592
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,704
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    58
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    408
<INCOME-TAX>                                       163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                245
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       245
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>ANTI-DILUTIVE
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### William Bliss et al., complainants-appellants, v. Linden Cemetery Association, respondent.

[Submitted December 8th, 1919.

Decided March 1st, 1920.]

On appeal from the court of chancery. See opinion of that court, *90 N. J. Eq. 404.*

*Messrs. Vail £ McLean,*for the appellants.

*Mr. Clark Mc'K.*WhittemOre, for the respondent.

*Mr. Abram 11. Cornish,*for the receiver.

Per Curiam.

The only cpiestion raised relates solely to the priority of payment of allowances awarded to the receiver, the- amount of which is not questioned, for operating expenses-, services and counsel fees out of moneys collected in two ways — first, by sales of lots, pursuant to the cemetery scheme, under which the receiver has operated the cemetery as a going- concern; seconclty, out of the proceeds of sale, of land of the insolvent cemetery corporation to a railroad company. The scheme, as noted in previous reports’of this litigation *(Bliss*v. *Cemetery Association, 85 N. J. Eq. 501; S. C., 89 N. J. Eq. 192),*involved a reservation of ten per cent, on gross proceeds of sales, and appellants claimed, before Vice-Chancellor Baches, .who advised the order now before us, that they were entitled to a. vendor’s lien which should be held prior to the expense of operating and of the receivership. The vice-chancellor rejected this claim, and rightly so. The well-settled rule, touching expenses of receivership of an insolvent corporation, is laid clown by statute in section 85 of the Corporation act, which provides that

> *330“before distribution of the assets of an insolvent corporation among the creditors and stockholders, the court of chancery shall allow a reasonable compensation to the receiver for his services and the costs and expenses of the administration of his trust, and the cost of the proceedings in said court to be first paid out of said assets.”

And the next section clearly indicates that such allowance precedes all liens, special and general, upon the funds of the corporation. There is no claim that the receiver ought not to have continued the business; no doubt he had the express direction of the court so to do. Under such circumstances, the question of the existence of a vendor’s lien is not involved in determining the priority of the award, for conceding its existence, for present purposes, it cannot precede the expenses of administering the trust.

The decree will be affirmed.

*For affirmance.*— Ti-ie Chief-Justice, Sttayze, Trenchard, Parker, Bergen, Minturn, Kalis oh, Black, White, Hep-pent-ieoier, Williams, Taylor, Gardner, Ackerson — 1-I-.

*For reversal*— None.
# Comments on: 19-108: IN RE: BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG [MOTION PANEL ORDER], Nonprecedential
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 58 Introduced in House (IH)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 58

      To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that 
 distributions from qualified State tuition programs which are used to 
   pay educational expenses shall not be includible in gross income.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 1999

  Mr. Bachus (for himself, Mr. Riley, Mr. Aderholt, and Mr. Everett) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that 
 distributions from qualified State tuition programs which are used to 
   pay educational expenses shall not be includible in gross income.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``College Savings Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF DISTRIBUTIONS FROM QUALIFIED 
              STATE TUITION PROGRAMS WHICH ARE USED FOR EDUCATIONAL 
              PURPOSES.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 529(c)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) Distributions for qualified higher education 
                expenses.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to any 
                distribution to the extent--
                            ``(i) the distribution is used exclusively 
                        to pay qualified higher education expenses of 
                        the distributee, or
                            ``(ii) the distribution consists of 
                        providing a benefit to the distributee which, 
                        if paid for by the distributee, would 
                        constitute payment of a qualified higher 
                        education expense.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1998.
                                 <all>
```
[Cite as State Farm Ins. v. Ohio Dept. of Transp. , 2010-Ohio-4228.] 

# Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215
614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 www.cco.state.oh.us

STATE FARM INS.

Plaintiff

v.

OHIO DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

Defendant

Case No. 2010-02561-AD

Deputy Clerk Daniel R. Borchert

ENTRY OF DISMISSAL

{¶ 1} On February 19, 2010, this court issued an entry requiring the corporate
entity to obtain counsel, have counsel file a notice of appearance, and file an amended
complaint. Plaintiff was also ordered to pay the $25 filing fee or to submit a poverty

statement. Failure to comply with this entry in 30 days would result in a dismissal of this

case.
{¶ 2} A check of the docket reveals plaintiff has failed to comply with the court’s
entry of February 19, 2010. Therefore, this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. The

court shall absorb the court costs of this case.

________________________________ DANIEL R. BORCHERT Deputy ClerkCase No. 2010-02561-AD - 2 - ENTRY

Entry cc:

State Farm Insurance A/S/O Scott A. Wells P.O. Box 2371 Bloomington, Illinois 61702

DRB/laa Filed 5/5/10 Sent to S.C. reporter 9/2/10
#### § 301-71.3 May we use electronic signatures on travel documents?

Yes, if you meet the security and privacy requirements established by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for electronic data interchange.
No. 11-652.

#### Sid-Mar’s Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. v. United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.