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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                             829
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,219
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     11,481
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           3,874
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             3,934
<LOANS>                                         27,601
<ALLOWANCE>                                        147
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  47,009
<DEPOSITS>                                      17,596
<SHORT-TERM>                                     6,008
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                439
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,562
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  47,009
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  2,230
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,242
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 3,472
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                 911
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,072
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,400
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       22
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   2
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,431
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    983
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       616
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .25
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .25
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.55
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   126
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  147
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            147
        

</TABLE>
S89G0271.

#### REESE v. THE STATE.

(387 SE2d 894)

Decided November 22, 1989.

*Hackel & Hackel, Thomas M. Hackel,*for appellant.

*Harry D. Dixon, Jr., District Attorney, Richard E. Currie, Assistant District Attorney,*for appellee.

Per curiam.

After plenary consideration of this matter *(Reese v. State,*191 Ga. App. 887 (383 SE2d 149) (1989)), it is found not to satisfy the criteria for the grant of certiorari, and the writ is therefore vacated.

*All the Justices concur.*
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"20-1350: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dV0j41rOj3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-20-1350-zaxcom-inc-v-lectrosonics-inc-opinion-20-1350-opinion-2-18-2022_1910803\/\">20-1350: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-18-2022-20-1350-zaxcom-inc-v-lectrosonics-inc-opinion-20-1350-opinion-2-18-2022_1910803\/embed\/#?secret=dV0j41rOj3\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-1350: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"dV0j41rOj3\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: ZAXCOM, INC. v. LECTROSONICS, INC. [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-1350 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001052013
<NAME> COMFORCE OPERATING, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                0.00001
<CASH>                                           4,200
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   91,052
<ALLOWANCES>                                       533
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               103,454
<PP&E>                                           8,517
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,216
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 258,356
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           37,804
<BONDS>                                        131,541
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                      41,386
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   258,356
<SALES>                                        230,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               230,188
<CGS>                                          187,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  218,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (24)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    641
<INCOME-TAX>                                       947
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (306)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (318)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         In connection with the periodic report of Connetics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Thomas G. Wiggans,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the
date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the
United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: March 11, 2004

      /s/ Thomas G. Wiggans
--------------------------------
Thomas G. Wiggans
President and Chief Executive Officer
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1

                               VANSTAR CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                             YEAR ENDED APRIL 30,
                                                     -------------------------------------
                                                       1997           1996          1995
                                                     --------       --------      --------
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>           <C>
Weighted average number of 
    common shares outstanding                         41,693         12,107        11,040 

Common equivalent shares from stock options
    using the treasury stock method                    1,589            309            72 

Common shares from the assumed conversion
    of all outstanding preferred stock and warrants        -         20,306        18,703 

Common equivalent shares from stock options
    and warrants related to SAB No. 83 using
    the treasury stock method                              -          1,528         2,671 
                                                     -------        -------        ------
Shares used in computing 
    earnings per share                                43,282         34,250        32,486 
                                                     -------        -------        ------
                                                     -------        -------        ------

Net income                                           $29,994        $17,247        $1,268 
                                                     -------        -------        ------
                                                     -------        -------        ------

Primary and fully diluted earnings per share
    (Pro forma prior to March 11, 1996)                $0.69          $0.50         $0.04 
                                                     -------        -------        ------
                                                     -------        -------        ------
</TABLE>
S90A0182.

#### GILLESPIE v. GILLESPIE.

(388 SE2d 688)

Decided February 28, 1990.

*Gregory M. Perry,*for appellant.

Benham, Justice.

We granted the application for discretionary appeal in this case to consider whether the trial court erred in awarding a one-half interest in certain real estate to the wife. The judgment entered by the trial court did not specify whether the award to appellee of an interest in the real estate was alimony or an equitable division of property. Appellant contends here, as he did at the hearing on his motion for new trial, that the award was erroneous if it was an award of alimony because the petition did not contain a prayer for alimony, and was erroneous if it was an equitable division of the property because the land in question was his separate property. At the hearing on the motion for new trial, appellant’s counsel argued that appellant’s testimony would show that the property was his; appellee’s counsel stated that appellee had testified at the final hearing that she had paid appellant for a one-half interest in the property. The trial court noted that it could not remember the evidence, but that it would not have awarded alimony in this case and that it was aware that property which was separate property of one spouse could not be equitably divided.

“The burden is on the party alleging error to show it affirmatively by the record. [Cits.]” *Shepherd v. Shepherd,*225 Ga. 455 (3) (169 SE2d 314) (1969). It is clear from the foregoing statement of the case that the error appellant urges requires a consideration of the evidence. Unfortunately for appellant, there is no transcript of the final hearing.

> Without a transcript of the evidence presented, we will in keeping with very old authority in this state presume in favor of public officers, in the absence of all proof to the contrary, that they discharged their duty in compliance with the law. *Doe v. Peeples,*1 Ga. 1 (1846). [Cit.] *[Mallory v. Mallory,*240 Ga. 63, 64 (239 SE2d 384) (1977).]

We presume, therefore, that the evidence supported a finding that the real estate at issue was marital property and that the trial court awarded appellee a one-half interest as an equitable division of property.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*839
      *Walter B. Harvey,*for appellee.
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 period ended April 30, 2008 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 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: June 9, 2008



/s/ James W. GreenJames W. GreenPresident and Chief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41516]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16825]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Aviation Proceedings, Agreements Filed During the Week Ending 
June 23, 2000

    The following Agreements were filed with the Department of 
Transportation under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 412 and 414. Answers 
may be filed within 21 days after the filing of the application.

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7549.
    Date Filed: June 19, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

    PTC2 EUR 0316 dated May 23, 2000 (Issuance).
    PTC2 EUR 0325 dated June 16, 2000 (Adoption)
    Mail Vote 076--Resolution 078y
    TC2 Pex Fares Within Europe
    Intended effective date: June 23, 2000

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7566.
    Date Filed: June 22, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

    CAC/28/Meet/006/00 dated June 8, 2000
    Finally Adopted Resos R1-6
    Minutes--CAC/28/Meet/005/00 dated June 7, 2000
    Intended effective date: October 1, 2000

    Docket Number: OST-2000-7579.
    Date Filed: June 23, 2000.
    Parties: Members of the International Air Transport Association.
    Subject:

    PTC12 USA-EUR 0099 dated June 20, 2000.
    North Atlantic USA-Europe Expedited Resolutions 002v and 054s
    Intended effective date: August 1, 2000

Dorothy Y. Beard,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 00-16825 Filed 7-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
# Comments on: 22-1360: RHONE v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Precedential
All data has been removed from this file as a result of CBI sanitization. All data provided by vendors 

regarding chemical purchase costs is considered CBI or CBI deducible.
#### § 302-17.63 What information should I provide to my agency to make the RITA calculation possible under the two-year process?

You should provide the information required in the “Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status” shown below. This information should be taken from the income tax returns you filed for Year 1.

| The following information, which my agency will use in calculating the RITA to which I am entitled, was shown on the Federal, state and local income tax returns that I (or my spouse and I) filed for the 20________ tax year. |
| --- |
| Federal Filing status: | |
| ☐ Single | ☐ Head of Household |
| ☐ Married Filing Jointly | ☐ Qualifying Widow(er) |
| ☐ Married Filing Separately | |
| Taxable income as shown on my (our) IRS Form 1040: $________ |
| State you are moving out of: ________________ | |
| Filing status for the state moving out of: ____________ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: ______% | |
| State you are moving into: ________________ | |
| Filing status for the state moving into: ________________ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: ________% | |
| Locality you are moving out of: ________________ | |
| Filing status for the locality moving out of: ________________ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: ________% | |
| Locality you are moving into: ________________ | |
| Filing status for the locality moving into: ________________ | |
| Marginal Tax Rate: ________% | |
| The above information is true and accurate to the best of my (our) knowledge. I (we) agree to notify the appropriate agency official of any significant changes to the above so that appropriate adjustments to the RITA can be made. | |
| ____________________________________ | ____________________ |
| Employee's signature | Date |
| ____________________________________ | ____________________ |
| Spouse's signature (if filing jointly) | Date |

Statement of Income and Tax Filing Status—Two-Year Process
**MPD** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0 666 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. DANIEL ALLEN DIETZ ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is gran ted an extension of time to and including Septe mber 1 6 , 2024 , within which to prepare, file, and serve its response brief.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 8 2024

08/08/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0666
#### § 101.119 Simultaneous use of common antenna structures.

The simultaneous use of common antenna structures by more than one radio station, or by one of more domestic public radio stations and one or more stations of any other class or service, may be authorized: provided, however, that each licensee or user of any such structure is responsible for maintaining the structure, and for painting and illuminating the structure when obstruction marking is required by the Commission. (See § 101.21(a).)
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Environmental Solutions
Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June 30, 2010 (the
"Report"), David J. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, and President of the
Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U. S. C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                     DATE: AUGUST 13th, 2010




                                     /S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                     --------------------
                                     DAVID J. JOHNSON
                                     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRESIDENT


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 Environmental Solutions Worldwide,
Inc. and will be retained by Environmental Solutions Worldwide, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.2


                     THIRD AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Third Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "Amendment"), dated as of
the 1st day of July,  2002 by and between  COMFORCE  Corporation  ("COMFORCE") a
Delaware  corporation,   and  COMFORCE  Operating,   Inc.  ("COI"),  a  Delaware
corporation that is wholly-owned by COMFORCE  (COMFORCE and COI are collectively
referred to as the "Employer"), and Harry V. Maccarrone, a resident of the State
of New York ("Employee").

     WHEREAS,  the parties  entered  into an  Employment  Agreement  dated as of
January 1, 1999,  pursuant  to which  Employer  formalized  the terms upon which
Employee is employed by Employer,  which  Employment  Agreement  was  previously
amended  as of  January  23,  2001  and  September  27,  2001 (as  amended,  the
"Employment Agreement"); and

     WHEREAS,  the parties desire to further amend the  Employment  Agreement as
herein provided.

     NOW, THEREFORE,  in consideration of the promises and mutual obligations of
the parties contained herein, and for other valuable consideration,  the receipt
and  sufficiency of which are hereby  acknowledged,  the parties hereto agree as
follows:

     1. The second  sentence  of Section  4(a) of the  Employment  Agreement  is
hereby amended by adding the following proviso at the end thereof:  "; provided,
however,  that,  notwithstanding  the  foregoing,  Employee's  Base Salary as in
effect at December 31, 2001 shall be increased by three  percent (3%)  effective
as of July 1,  2002,  but no other  increase  shall be made to  Employee's  Base
Salary for the 2002 calendar year."

     2. All other  provisions of the Employment  Agreement  shall remain in full
force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement on the day
and year first above mentioned.

                              COMFORCE CORPORATION

                              By:
                                 --------------------------------------
                                   Its:

                              COMFORCE OPERATING, INC.

                              By:
                                 --------------------------------------
                                   Its:

                              EMPLOYEE

                              -----------------------------------------
                               Harry V. Maccarrone