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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             968
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           2,701
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,034
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      1,859
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           5,889
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             5,940
<LOANS>                                         92,967
<ALLOWANCE>                                        570
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,092
<DEPOSITS>                                      66,973
<SHORT-TERM>                                     7,800
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,243
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        20,611
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,465
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 108,092
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  7,490
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  572
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   291
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 8,353
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,345
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,491
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,862
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       60
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,514
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,433
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       2,433
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,532
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .82
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .83
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.77
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                       295
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   511
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        1
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  570
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            570
        

</TABLE>
No. 11-5463.

#### Vaquera-Juanes *v.*United States.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Follow OPM & Your Professor's Guidance During Any Weather Closings or Delays! 

/ Published Jan. 20, 2016

For our eResident courses, please stay tuned to OPM announcements on the status of the US Federal Government during the upcoming snow storm. Please note that even if the campus is physically closed, many courses will still be held online via our Blackboard tool. Your professor will be your best resource for course guidance during any closings or delays. Thank you!
No. 10-10877.

#### Zahir *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
MEMORANDUM

DATE: September 16, 2014

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Gavin Lau, EPA Region 2/CASD-APB

SUBJECT: July 22, 2014 Meeting Regarding Pr oposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants and the upcoming supplemental propos al for U.S. territories and areas of Indian country

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on July 22, 2014 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan fo r Existing Power Plants and the upcoming supplemental proposal for U.S. territories and areas of Indian country. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board:

Ms. Eliud Gerena

Mr. Weldin Ortiz

Ms. Laura Vélez

Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority:

Mr. Rafael Marrero Ms. Sonia Miranda Vega

Ms. Ivelisse Sánchez

Governor’s Office:

Ms. Carmen A. Villar

Office of Energy Puerto Rico:

Mr. José Maeso
Order entered December 21, 2018 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-18-00967-CV 

IN RE TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY BOARD 

OF TRUSTEES, GARY PATTERSON, CHRIS DEL CONTE, DAVID GABLE, ZACH

LACROSS, DILLON SMITH, JAMES RUSSELL "RUSTY" BURNS, AND DOUGLAS

MEACHUM, Relators 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-18-00585-A 

ORDER 

Before Justices Bridges, Brown, and Boatright 

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we CONDITIONALLY GRANT relators’ 

petition for writ of mandamus. We ORDER the trial judge, the Honorable D’Metria Benson, to 

vacate her July 23, 2018 order denying relators’ plea in abatement and enter an order granting 

the plea in abatement. We further ORDER the trial judge to file with this Court within fifteen 

(15) days of the date of this order, a certified copy of her order issued in compliance with this 

order. Should the trial court fail to comply with the order, the writ will issue. 

We ORDER that relators recover their costs of this original proceeding, if any, from real 

party in interest Kolby Listenbee. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

 JUSTICE
No. 10-10821.

#### Flores *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Aja TERMINE, by and through her Guardian ad Litem Karen Termine; Karen Termine, an individual, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT; Westmark School, Defendants— Appellees.

No. 02-56638.

D.C. No. CV-02-01114-SVW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Dec. 2, 2003.

Order Filed Jan. 9, 2004.

Amended to Memorandum Disposition March 12, 2004.

Marcy J.K. Tiffany, Steven M. Wyner, Wyner & Tiffany, Torrance, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Barrett K. Green, Littler *&*Mendelson, Los Angeles, CA, Harold Gutenberg, Greenberg *&*Bass, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before B. FLETCHER, FARRIS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

In this appeal appellants seek reversal of the district court’s decision denying a “stay-put” order that would require the Hart School district to keep Aja Termine in Westmark, a private school where she was placed by the Glendale School district, the district in which she previously lived.

Before the district court issued its opinion regarding the stay-put placement, the SEHO1 hearing officer for the Hart School District conducted a full due process hearing and issued his opinion. The SEHO officer took oral and documentary evidence. On July 3, 2002, he issued an opinion determining whether the Hart School District had provided Aja with a free and appropriate public education (“FAPE”) between October 3, 2001 and July 3, 2002.

The isolated issue of whether Aja was entitled to have Westmark designated as her stay-put placement is closely related to the appropriateness of Hart’s proposed interim placement and whether Hart provided Aja with FAPE. Under these circumstances, the stay-put issue should not be considered in isolation. The SEHO has developed a factual record, and its record presumably includes facts that will allow a determination as to whether it was “possible” for Hart to implement Aja’s previous individualized educational placement “in full.” *See Ms. S. ex rel G. v. Vashon Island Sch. Dist.,*337 F.3d 1115, 1134 (9th Cir.2003). That record is not before us, and it would be inappropriate for us to determine the stay-put placement issue in this case without it.2

*201The parties have appealed the decision in the due process hearing to the district court. We direct that the district court vacate its opinion that is the subject of this appeal and reconsider its opinion in light of *Vashon Island Sch. Dist.,*the record in the appeal from the due process hearing and any additional evidence it may take at the request of the parties or either of them.

REMANDED with instruction.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. The California Special Education Hearing Office ("SEHO”) is an administrative body that adjudicates disputes regarding the proper placement of disabled students by public school districts.

2

. Although we cannot expand the record on appeal, the IDEA allows the district court to "hear additional evidence at the request of a party.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(B)(ii).
§ 69.609 End User Common Line hypothetical net balances. ( a ) If the company does not participate in the association tariff for such element, the hypothetical net balance shall be zero.
( b ) If the company does participate in the association tariff for such element, the hypothetical net balance shall be computed by multiplying an amount that is computed by deducting access revenues collected by such company for such element from an End User Common Line revenue requirement for such company that is computed in accordance with subpart F of this part by a factor that is computed by dividing access revenues collected by all such companies for such element by an End User Common Line revenue requirement for all such companies that is computed in accordance with subpart F of this part. For purposes of this calculation, access revenues collected shall include any revenues foregone because of a voluntary reduction made pursuant to § 69.104(r)(7).
[48 FR 10358, Mar. 11, 1983, as amended at 66 FR 59733, Nov. 30, 2001]
No. 11-5127.

#### Tyler *v.*District of Columbia.

Ct. App. D. C. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Yves C. Renaud, Director, President, and CFO of BIMS Renewable Energy Inc. (the Company) do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



1.  This quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed 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



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



/s/ Yves C. Renaud

Yves C. Renaud

Director, President, CFO



Date: August 13, 2004



































11
§ 64.1509 Disclosure and dissemination of pay-per-call information. ( a ) Any common carrier assigning a telephone number to a provider of interstate pay-per-call services shall make readily available, at no charge, to Federal and State agencies and all other interested persons: ( 1 ) A list of the telephone numbers for each of the pay-per-call services it carries;
( 2 ) A short description of each such service;
( 3 ) A statement of the total cost or the cost per minute and any other fees for each such service; and
( 4 ) A statement of the pay-per-call service provider's name, business address, and business telephone number.
( b ) Any common carrier assigning a telephone number to a provider of interstate pay-per-call services and offering billing and collection services to such provider shall: ( 1 ) Establish a local or toll-free telephone number to answer questions and provide information on subscribers' rights and obligations with regard to their use of pay-per-call services and to provide to callers the name and mailing address of any provider of pay-per-call services offered by that carrier; and
( 2 ) Provide to all its telephone subscribers, either directly or through contract with any local exchange carrier providing billing and collection services to that carrier, a disclosure statement setting forth all rights and obligations of the subscriber and the carrier with respect to the use and payment of pay-per-call services. Such statement must include the prohibition against disconnection of basic communications services for failure to pay pay-per-call charges established by § 64.1507, the right of a subscriber to obtain blocking in accordance with § 64.1508, the right of a subscriber not to be billed for pay-per-call services not offered in compliance with federal laws and regulations established by § 64.1510(a)(1), and the possibility that a subscriber's access to 900 services may be involuntarily blocked pursuant to § 64.1512 for failure to pay legitimate pay-per-call charges. Disclosure statements must be forwarded to: ( i ) All telephone subscribers no later than 60 days after these regulations take effect;
( ii ) All new telephone subscribers no later than 60 days after service is established;
( iii ) All telephone subscribers requesting service at a new location no later than 60 days after service is established; and
( iv ) Thereafter, to all subscribers at least once per calendar year, at intervals of not less than 6 months nor more than 18 months.
[58 FR 44773, Aug. 25, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 55582, Oct. 28, 1996]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,703
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,180
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (466)
<INVENTORY>                                      4,786
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,237
<PP&E>                                           6,939
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,266)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,421
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            96
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,048
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,065
<SALES>                                         10,958
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,403
<CGS>                                            6,447
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,447
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,114
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (17)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    859
<INCOME-TAX>                                       414
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                445
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       445
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.04


</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2141

_____________________________

MARCUS GOGGINS,

Petitioner,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Petition Alleging Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel—

Original Jurisdiction.

September 26, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition alleging ineffective assistance of appellate 

counsel is denied on the merits.

MAKAR, OSTERHAUS, and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Marcus Goggins, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
No. 10-10830.

#### Pino Gonzalez *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# Mr. Mark Duke

### Associate Professor of Practice

### Data Protection, Dark Web

### 

### **Areas of Interest:**

Remediation & Resiliency, data protection, dark web

### **Academic Credentials:** 

B.A., Sam Houston State University M.A., Webster UniversityM.S., George Mason University

### **Relevant Professional Experience: **

Prior to joining the College of Information and Cyberspace faculty, Mr. Duke served over 25 years in the U.S. Army, within U.S. Signal Corps Communication and Electronics. Mr. Duke was also a Joint Duty Officer with the National Security Agency as an Information Systems Security Engineer (ISSE) while supporting the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), DoD Joint Staff, the many organizations within the Intelligence Community (IC), and numerous Non-DoD agencies.

### **Relevant Professional Experience: **

Mr. Duke’s areas of expertise include Information Assurance & Information Security, Network Engineering & Network Security, Certification & Accreditation (C&A), Emerging Technologies, and Fiber Optics & Wireless Systems and Telecommunications.  He is currently pursuing his Ph.D. in Engineering Management and Systems Engineering with George Washington University.

### **Courses:**

Information Assurance and Critical Infrastructure Protection (AII)Approval to Operate: Information System Certification & Accreditation (ATO)Global Enterprise Networking and Telecommunications (GEN)Global Information Grid (GIG)

 

Check out his introduction video here. →
2022 Cyber Beacon Conference Hosted by CIC.
 
  By National Defense University, Ft McNair, Washington D.C
  Our 2022 Cyber Beacon will be held on October 6, 2022 starting at 0700 as an in-person event only. All students are invited to attend. We look forward to seeing everyone there and having a great event! **REGISTRATION CAN BE FOUND HERE** **THE AGENDA CAN BE FOUND HERE** **OUR PROMOTIONAL VIDEO CAN BE FOUND HERE**
No. 11-5619.

#### Wiig *v.*United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1

               CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 10 U. S. C. SECTION 1350
                      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Form 10-QSB of Environmental
Solutions Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarterly period June 30, 2004
(the "Report"), Nitin M. Amersey, Interim Chairman of the Company, David J.
Johnson, Interim Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company and Arthur
V. Conover, III, Controller of the Company, each 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.



/S/ NITIN M. AMERSEY
--------------------
Nitin M. Amersey
Interim Chairman of the Board
August 12, 2004


/S/ DAVID J. JOHNSON
--------------------
David J. Johnson
Interim President and Chief Executive Officer
August 12, 2004


/S/ ARTHUR V. CONOVER, III
--------------------------
Arthur V. Conover, III
Controller
August 12, 2004



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.

                                       24





<PAGE>
[No. 2991.]

#### James Jackson *v.*The State.

t. Practice-Plea.—Unless the transcript on appeal discloses that a plea by or for the accused was entered, a conviction cannot stand.

8. Same—Plating Cards in a Public Place.—Indictment for playing cards in a public place must allege the facts constituting the place a public place, unless the place alleged be one of those enumerated in the Penal Code. Allegation that the game was played “in a public place, to-wit, in the room back of the Gilt Edge saloon,” is not sufficient.

*374Appeal from the County Court of Coleman. Tried below before the Hon. W. 0. Read, County Judge;

The opinion discloses the nature of the case. The penalty imposed by the verdict was a fine of ten dollars.

*Coleman & Randolph,*for the appellant.)

*J H. Burts,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.'

Hurt, Judge.

This is a conviction for playing cards. 'In the record we find two errors fatal to the judgment. 1. There is no plea by defendant. *2.*The indictment alleges that defendant did unlawfully play at a game of cards “in a public place, to-wit, in the room back of the Gilt Edge saloon.”

The rule upon this subject is that if the indictment alleges that the playing took place in or at a house or place mentioned in the Code, this will suffice; but if the playing occurred in or at any other public house or place, not mentioned in the Code, the facts constituting it a public house or place must be alleged.

It is charged in the indictment that the playing occurred in a room back of the Gilt Edge saloon, and that this room was a public place. How far from the saloon was this room “ back of the saloon” situated? What connection was there between the saloon and this “ room back of the saloon?” If this room had been attached to a public house, and was commonly used for gaming, an indictment charging a house named in the Code or setting forth the facts constituting thé house a public house, and alleging that the room in which the game was played was attached to such house, would be good. But if the room, house or place is not mentioned in the Code, but is nevertheless public, the facts making it public must be stated in the indictment.

Because there is no plea by defendant, and because the indict- j ment is defective in substance, the judgment is reversed, and ■ because of an insufficient indictment, the prosecution is dismissed.

*Reversed and dismissed.*

Opinion delivered May 31, 1884.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

D.A.D.,

Respondent

v.

A.D.H.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 204 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25th day of June, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
Named Executive Officer Merit Increases



 Exhibit 10.9 
 Named Executive Officer Merit Increases 
 Effective January 28, 2007 
  

				
	 Name / Title
	  	2007 Annual
Base Salary
	 Neil S. Novich
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	850,000
		
	 Jay M. Gratz
Executive Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and
President – Ryerson Coil Processing
	  	$	525,300
		
	 Gary J. Niederpruem
Executive Vice President
	  	$	525,300
		
	 Stephen E. Makarewicz
President – Ryerson South
	  	$	335,000
		
	 James M. Delaney
President – Global Accounts Division
	  	$	280,152