alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 99.3

CERTIFICATION OF CEO

STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

The undersigned, Gregory C. Talbott is the Executive VicePresident, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of PFF Bancorp, Inc. (the"Company").

This statement is being furnished in connection with the filingby the Company of the Company's Amended Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for theyear ended March 31, 2002 (the "Report").

By execution of this statement, I certify that:

         the Report fully complies with the requirements of          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934          (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and
         the information contained in the Report fairly          presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and          results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the          periods covered by the Report.
This statement is authorized to be attached as an exhibit to theReport so that this statement will accompany the Report at such time as theReport is filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.It is not intended that this statement be deemed to be filed for purposes of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

August 14, 2002
/s/ Gregory C. Talbott
Dated 
Gregory C. Talbott
088P15-2

#### Mason W. Hyde v. State

1. Defs *Pro Se*Petition for. *Writ of Mandamus*

1. Denied 10/09/2015

2. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Petition for Prohibition

2. Denied 10/09/2015

3. Defs Pro *Se*Motion for Petition for Writ of Error Coram Nobis

3. Denied 10/09/2015

4. Defs Pro *Se*Petition for *Writ of Habeas Corpus*

4. Denied 10/09/2015

5. Defs *Pro Se*Motion for Petition for *Certiorari*

5. Denied 10/09/2015
#### § 80.87 Cooperative use of frequency assignments.

Each radio channel is available for use on a shared basis only and is not available for the exclusive use of any one station or station licensee. Station licensees must cooperate in the use of their respective frequency assignments in order to minimize interference and obtain the most effective use of the authorized radio channels.
46843.

#### MINGO v. THE STATE.

(382 SE2d 594)

Bell, Justice.

The appellant, Francois M. Mingo, appeals his conviction of the malice murder of David Session. The trial court sentenced Mingo to life imprisonment.1 Mingo raises only one issue on appeal, contending that certain evidence admitted over his objection improperly placed his character in evidence. We affirm.

Mingo’s wife, Melissa, was the step-daughter of David Session. Mingo met his wife at the church where Session was the presiding minister. Early in their relationship, Melissa told Mingo that Session had molested her during her adolescent years. Mingo testified that he was very upset over Session’s behavior.

On March 8, 1988, the appellant went to the home of Session and his wife, telling them he had come to thank them for pledging their property to make Mingo’s bond on an unrelated criminal-trespass charge and to let them know that that charge had been dismissed that morning. During the course of the conversation, Mingo drew out a handgun that he had purchased the previous day and shot four times at Session, hitting him twice in the head and killing him.

Mingo testified that, when he was talking with Session, Session mentioned Mingo’s wife, causing Mingo to lose control and shoot Session.

1. After reviewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support Mingo’s conviction, in that any rational trier of fact could have found Mingo guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

2. Mingo’s sole enumeration of error on appeal is that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of his previous arrest on the criminal-trespass charge. Mingo contends that that evidence impermissibly placed his character in issue. We find no error. See *Baxter v. State*254 Ga. 538, 547-548 (16) (331 SE2d 561) (1985); *Chambers v. State,*250 Ga. 856, 859 (2) (302 SE2d 86) (1983); *Dampier v. State,*245 Ga. 427, 433-434 (10) (265 SE2d 565) (1980).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*395Decided September 6, 1989.

*James Archie,*for appellant.

*Robert E. Wilson, District Attorney, Robert M. Coker, Mike McDaniel, Assistant District Attorneys, Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, C. A. Benjamin Woolf,*for appellee.

1

 The crime occurred on March 8,1988. Mingo was indicted during the March 1988 term of the local grand jury. The jury returned its verdict of guilty on July 21, 1988, and the trial court sentenced Mingo that same day. Mingo filed a motion for new trial on August 17, 1988, and the court reporter certified the transcript on August 31. The trial court denied the motion for new trial on February 22, 1989, and Mingo filed his notice of appeal on March 14, 1989. The case was docketed in this court on March 30, 1989, and was submitted for decision on briefs on May 12, 1989.
No. 11-5787.

#### Arias-Hernandez, aka Sanchez-Camacho *v.*United States.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### § 73.1300 Unattended station operation.

Broadcast stations may be operated as either attended (where a designated person is responsible for the proper operation of the transmitting apparatus either at the transmitter site, a remote control point or an ATS control point) or unattended (where highly stable equipment or automated monitoring of station operating parameters is employed). No prior FCC approval is required to operate a station in the unattended mode. Regardless of which method of station operation is employed, licensees must employ procedures which will ensure compliance with Part 11 of this chapter, the rules governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS).

[60 FR 55481, Nov. 1, 1995]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Celadon Group, Inc. at June 30, 1999 and
the condensed consolidated statement of operations of Celadon Group, Inc. for
the year then ended and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                    1,000

<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          1,845
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30,509
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (788)
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               65,911
<PP&E>                                        141,213
<DEPRECIATION>                                (33,629)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                188,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          45,796
<BONDS>                                        93,818
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          256
<OTHER-SE>                                     57,089
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  188,759
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              281,829
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 266,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   97
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              7,385
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 7,821
<INCOME-TAX>                                    2,980
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             4,841
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,841
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.62




</TABLE>
Exhibit
10.2.15


OPTION AMENDMENT AGREEMENT


This
Option Amendment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is entered into as of the latest date
set forth below by and between Verigy Ltd. a Singapore Corporation (“Verigy”) and                                 ,
a member of Verigy’s Board of Directors (“Director”).


WHEREAS,
on [DATE] Director was awarded an option to purchase [QUANTITY] Verigy ordinary
shares at an exercise price of [PRICE PER SHARE] (the “Option”); and


WHEREAS,
the Option had a term of seven years from the date of grant; and


WHEREAS,
the parties desire to shorten the term of the option to five years;


NOW,
THEREFORE, The parties hereby agree as follows:


1.             Amendment. 
The Option is hereby amended such that the Option will expire on the earlier of (a) the date five years after
the date of grant or (b) the date 12 months after the termination of your
Service for any reason.


2.             Miscellaneous.  This Amendment may be signed in two
counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original and both of which
together shall be deemed to be one instrument. 
Except as expressly amended hereby, the Option shall remain in full
force and effect on the terms provided at the time of issuance, and shall
continue to be governed by the terms of the Company’s 2006 Equity Incentive
Plan.


	
  VERIGY LTD.

  	
  DIRECTOR

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  Keith Barnes

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  President & CEO

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Date:
<PAGE>
 
                                  EXHIBIT 18.1

Leslie's Poolmart, Inc.

November 14, 1997

Re:  Form 10-K Report for the Nine Months Ended September 27, 1997

Gentlemen:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for a
letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been a
change in accounting principle or practice.

As of July 1, 1997, the Company changed from the last-in first-out (LIFO) method
of accounting for inventory to the first-in first-out (FIFO) method.  According
to the management of the Company, this change was primarily for the following
reasons:

1.   The Company must meet minimum financial covenants in accordance with its
     publicly traded Senior Notes and in accordance with a revolving credit
     facility with a bank.  These covenants must be calculated on a FIFO basis,
     as specified in the agreements.

2.   The predominant costing method within Leslie's industry is FIFO.

3.   The change to FIFO does not materially change the Company's historical
     trends and will not have a material effect on shareholders' equity.

4.   The market price for the inventory of the Company is quite variable. Also,
     the change to FIFO will not materially change the inventory value.

5.   The FIFO method will present inventory at a value that most closely
     approximates its replacement cost and its actual acquisition cost. Use of
     the FIFO method will enable users such as the bond holders and commercial
     banks to better understand the Company's financial condition.

6.   The FIFO method will minimize the effect of accounting estimates on interim
     financial information.

7.   The Company will realize significant administrative savings as a result of
     a change to FIFO.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for determining
the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable alternative
principles has not been established by the accounting profession. Thus, we
cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in accounting
described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method. However, we have
reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to financial reporting,
in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our opinion stated below is
based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to an
acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under the
circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we have
relied on the business judgment and business planning of your management.


ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1201/2005

of 26 July 2005         

on the issue of import licences for rice against applications submitted during the first 10 working days of July 2005 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 327/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1095/96 of 18 June 1996 on the implementation of concessions set out in Schedule CXL drawn up in the wake of the conclusion of GATT XXIV.6 negotiations (1),

Having regard to Council Decision 96/317/EC of 13 May 1996 concerning the conclusion of the results of consultations with Thailand under GATT Article XXIII (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 327/98 of 10 February 1998 opening and providing for the administration of certain tariff quotas for imports of rice and broken rice (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2458/2001, and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,

Whereas:

Examination of the quantities for which applications have been submitted under the July 2005 tranche shows that licences should be issued for the quantities applied for, reduced, where appropriate, by the percentages not covered and fixing the quantities carried over to the subsequent tranche,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

1.   Import licences for rice against applications submitted during the first 10 working days of July 2005 pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 327/98 and notified to the Commission shall be issued for the quantities applied for, reduced by the percentages set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

2.   The available quantities carried over to the subsequent tranche are set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 27 July 2005.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 26 July 2005.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

----

(1)OJ L 146, 20.6.1996, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 122, 22.5.1996, p. 15.

(3)OJ L 37, 11.2.1998, p. 5. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2296/2003 (OJ L 340, 24.12.2003, p. 35).

----

ANNEX

Reduction percentages to be applied to quantities applied for under the tranche for July 2005 and quantities carried over to the following tranche:

(a)   semi-milled and wholly milled rice falling within CN code 1006 30 

(b)   husked rice falling within CN code 1006 20 

(c)   broken rice falling within CN code 1006 40 00 

----

(1)  Issue for the quantity applied for.

----
Hillsborough

No. 82-019

#### The State of New Hampshire v. Edwin W. Page, II

June 11, 1982

*Gregory H. Smith,*attorney general *(Michael A. Pignatelli,*assistant attorney general, on the brief), by brief for the State.

*James E. Duggan,*of Concord, appellate defender, by brief for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

Defendant asserts that this court erred in the case of *Novosel v. Helgemoe,*118 N.H. 115, 384 A.2d 124 (1978), when it concluded that sanity should not be treated as an element of crime to be proved by the State beyond a reasonable doubt, but that insanity should be an affirmative defense to be proved by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence. *Id.*at 126-27, 384 A.2d at 130-31. The jury in this case found the defendant to be sane and convicted him of kidnapping and aggravated felonious sexual assault. After sentencing by *Contas,*J., defendant brought this appeal, asserting that only the legislature could make the insanity defense an affirmative one.

We see no reason to reexamine our holding in *Novosel.*

*Affirmed.*
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

UNITED COMMUNITIES, LLC,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-1485

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:20-cv-01220-PEC, Judge Patricia E. CampbellSmith.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit 

Judges. 

MOORE, Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the United States’s motion to 

dismiss this appeal as untimely and United Communities,

LLC’s response at ECF No. 22 “conced[ing] that this Court 

can dismiss the instant appeal as untimely filed,” 

Case: 22-1485 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 02/22/2024
2 UNITED COMMUNITIES, LLC v. US

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The stay is lifted, and the motion to dismiss is 

granted.

(2) Each party shall bear its own costs.

February 22, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 22-1485 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 02/22/2024
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 50940]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7193]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


Office of Insular Affairs; Solicitation of Comments

AGENCY: Office of Insular Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Insular 
Affairs will make available for comment its draft report produced 
pursuant to sec. 251 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub. L. 109-58), 
concerning power utilities and energy usage in the U.S.-affiliated 
insular areas. These areas include the territories of Guam, American 
Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and American 
Samoa, as well as the freely associated states of the Republic of 
Palau, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and the Federated States 
of Micronesia. The report was produced in consultation with the 
consultation with the U.S. Department of Energy. The draft report will 
be available on the Web site of the Department of the Interior's Office 
of Insular Affairs; the comments will be used to produce the final 
draft of the report by the end of FY 2006.

DATES: Please submit all comments in writing on or before September 27, 
2006. There will be no second opportunity to submit comments.

ADDRESSES: The draft report is available on the Office of Insular 
Affairs Web site, http://www.doi.gov/oia/. Submit electronic comments 
to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d4bebba7b1a4bc8bb3b1b7b5ba94bdbba7fab0bbbdfab3bba2"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="82e8edf1e7f2eadde5e7e1e3ecc2ebedf1ace6edebace5edf4">[email protected]</span></a>; see Supplemental Information or 
instructions on formatting. Address written comments to the attention 
of the Energy Policy Act Team, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office 
of Insular Affairs, 1849 C St. NW., Mailstop 4311-A, Washington, DC 
20240.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Gean, (202) 208-4736.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Any electronic comments should be submitted 
in Word, WordPerfect, or PDF document formats only.

    Dated: August 21, 2006.
R. Thomas Weimer,
Assistant Secretary--Policy, Management, and Budget.
[FR Doc. 06-7193 Filed 8-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-93-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
T he H onor abl e E dw ar d R . K orm an, S e ni orU ni t e d S t a t es D i s tr i c tJudge f or * the E a s t e rn D i s tr i c tof

N e w Y ork, s i tt i ng byde s i gna t i on. UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T KA R E N K OC HA R YA N, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 06- 72564 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 613- 841 ORDER

B e f o r e : HA WKI NS a n dT HO MAS , C i r c u i tJu d g e s , a n dKO R MAN, D i stri ct * Judg e. T he c ourt he r e byw i thdr aw s i t s M e m or andum di s pos i t i on f i l e d N ove m be r16, 2 0 0 9 . T he P e t i t i one r ’ s u n oppos e d m ot i on t o di s m i s s the pe t i t i on f orr e vi e w a s m oot i s gr a nt e d. P E T I T I O N D I S M I S S E D . T h e m an d a te s h a ll is s u e f o rth w ith . 

# FI LED MA R 19 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 98-41123

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GARY DEAN FISHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. C-98-CR-117-1

- - - - - - - - - -

May 10, 1999

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Dean Fisher appeals his conviction, following a jury

trial, for possessing approximately 129 kilograms of marijuana

with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(1)(B). The evidence was not insufficient to support the

conviction. See United States v. El-Zoubi, 993 F.2d 442, 445

(5th Cir. 1993). Although the marijuana was concealed in a

hidden compartment in Fisher’s fishing boat, there was

circumstantial evidence, including evidence that the boat had

been altered in a manner that should have been apparent to
No. 98-41123

-2-

Fisher, that he had knowledge of the presence of marijuana in the

boat. See United States v. Cano-Guel, 167 F.3d 900, 904 (5th

Cir. 1999); United States v. Ortega Reyna, 148 F.3d 540, 544 (5th

Cir. 1998).

AFFIRMED.
§ 80.92 Prevention of interference. ( a ) The station operator must determine that the frequency is not in use by monitoring the frequency before transmitting, except for transmission of signals of distress.
( b ) When a radiocommunication causes interference to a communication which is already in progress, the interfering station must cease transmitting at the request of either party to the existing communication. As between nondistress traffic seeking to commence use of a frequency, the priority is established under § 80.91.
( c ) Except in cases of distress, communications between ship stations or between ship and aircraft stations must not interfere with public coast stations. The ship or aircraft stations which cause interference must stop transmitting or change frequency upon the first request of the affected coast station.
#### § 32.103 Balance sheet accounts for other than regulated-fixed assets to be maintained.

Balance sheet accounts to be maintained by companies for other than regulated-fixed assets are indicated as follows:

| Account title | |
| --- | --- |
| Current assets | |
| Cash and equivalents | 1120 |
| Receivables | 1170 |
| Allowance for doubtful accounts | 1171 |
| Supplies: | |
| Material and supplies | 1220 |
| Prepayments | 1280 |
| Other current assets | 1350 |
| Noncurrent assets | |
| Investments: | |
| Nonregulated investments | 1406 |
| Other noncurrent assets | 1410 |
| Deferred charges: | |
| Deferred maintenance, retirements and other deferred charges | 1438 |
| Other: | |
| Other jurisdictional assets-net | 1500 |

Balance Sheet Accounts

[82 FR 20840, May 4, 2017]
1201 New York Ave., NW | Washington, DC 20525 | 202-606-5000 | MLKDay.gov
258P15

#### State v. Rahul Rumar Mack

1. Def’s *Pro Se*Motion for Notice of Appeal (COA13-1173)

1. Dismissed *ex mero*mote

2. Defs *Pro Se*PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Dismissed

3. Def’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*

3. Denied

Ervin, J.,

recused