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

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                       2,373,995
<SECURITIES>                                 5,640,551
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,701,899
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    292,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            10,191,445
<PP&E>                                       1,882,326
<DEPRECIATION>                               (607,774)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,106,599
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,633,023
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           719
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,338,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,744,039
<CGS>                                        1,542,770
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,542,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,854,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,516,084)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,516,084)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,516,084)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (1.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.05)


</TABLE>
SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION { CONVENEDJANUARY6 1999 

SECOND SESSION { 

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR 

Tuesday, February 23, 1999 

PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF GARY SISCO, 

SECRETARY OF THE SENATE 

By Michelle Haynes, Executive Clerk 
1 

RESOLUTIONS 

CALENDAR Ex. REs REPORTED 

No No SUBJECT BY 
2 

TREATIES 

CALENDAR TREATY REPORTED 

No Doc No SUBJECT BY 
3 

NOMINATIONS 

CALENDAR MESSAGE REPORTED 

No No NOMINEE, OFFICE, AND PREDECESSOR BY 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT 

* 1 1-15 Susan G. Esserman, of Maryland, to be Deputy Jan 22,99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

United States Trade Representative, with the Committee on Finance, Without 

rank of Ambassador, vice Jeffrey M. Lang, printed report. 

resigned. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

* 2 1-18 Timothy F. Geithner, of New York, to be an Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice David A. Committee on Finance, Without 

Lipton. printed report. 

* 3 1-19 Gary Gensler, of Maryland, to be an Under Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Secretary of the Treasury, vice John D. Committee on Finance, without 

Hawke, Jr. printed report. 

* 4 3-5 Edwin M. Truman, of Maryland, to be a Deputy Jan 22, 99 Reported by Mr. Roth, 

Under Secretary of the Treasury, vice Timothy Committee on Fmance, Without 

F. Geithner. printed report. 

NATIONAL INDIAN GAMING COMMISSION 

* 5 1-9 MontieR. Deer, of Kansas, to be Chairman of the Feb 10, 99 Reported by Mr. 

National Indian Gaming Commission for the Campbell, Committee on Indian 

term of three years, vice Tadd Johnson. Affairs, without printed report. 

* s~gmf~es nommee's comm~tment to respond to requests to appear and test~fy before any duly const~tuted comm~ttee of the Senate 
4 

NOMINATIONS PLACED ON THE SECRETARY'S DESK
|  | WASTESRecent                                                                                 Additions | Contact                                                                                 Us |                                                                                 Print                                                                                 Version                                                                                 Search:                                                                                 EPA                     Home >                     Wastes>                     R Publications                     > RCRA Orientation Manual |
|--|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

||
||
()

July27, 2007

RECFRD

Donald S. Welsh liii

.JJL E.

.. Regional Administrator

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA, RGRegion 3 OFFICE OF REGIONAL AiJ.iTRATOR

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Dear Mr. Welsh:The purpose of this letter is to submit copies of Marylands State Implementation Plan

(SIP# 07-06) which verifies that Maryland fuily complies with the requirements of § 11 0(a)(2) of the

Clean Air Act. The document provides a detailed listing ofthe requirements of §11 0(a)(2) and confirms

that all implementation, maintenance, and enforcement measures are in place in Maryland for the 8-Hour

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).

A public hearing for this SIP was held in Baltimore, Maryland on July 10, 2007. All required

administrative procedures were properly followed throughout the hearing process. If you have anyquestions concerning this SIP submittal, please feel free to call George (Tad) S. Aburn, Jr., Director of the

Air and Radiation Management Administration at (410) 537-3255.

Very truly yours,

iJt

han T. Wilson

Secretary

Enclosurescc: George (Tad) Aburn, Jr., Director, Air and Radiation Management Administration, MDE

Diane Franks, Program Manager, Air Quality Planning, MDEBrian Hug, Deputy Program Manager, Air Quality Planning, MDE

Recycled Paper w’vw.mde.state.md.us TTY Users l-8OO735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
#### § 1174.1 Purpose.

This part implements the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986, 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812 (PFCRA). The PFCRA provides the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and other Federal agencies, with an administrative remedy to impose civil penalties and assessments against persons who make, submit, or present, or cause to be made, submitted or presented, false, fictitious, or fraudulent claims or written statements to NEH. The PFCRA also provides due process protections to all persons who are subject to administrative proceedings under this part.
#### § 1232.6 Notice.

Recipients shall take appropriate initial and continuing steps to notify participants, beneficiaries, applicants, volunteers and employees, including those with impaired vision or hearing, that it does not discriminate on the basis of handicap in violation of section 504 and this part.
§ 1174.8 Service of a complaint. ( a ) The reviewing official must serve the complaint on an individual defendant directly, on a partnership through a general partner, and on a corporation or an unincorporated association through an executive officer or a director, except that the reviewing official may also make service on any person authorized by appointment or by law to receive process for the defendant.
( b ) The reviewing official may serve the complaint either by: ( 1 ) Registered or certified mail; or
( 2 ) Personal delivery by anyone eighteen years of age or older.
( c ) The date of service is the date of personal delivery or, in the case of service by registered or certified mail, the date of postmark.
( d ) When the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she should also serve the defendant with a copy of this part and 31 U.S.C. 3801-3812.
Swanson, Brian (OST) hQT'DS^]'-.-jl^^(r - i^O ^ 

From: Lucero, Jane, NMDOT [Jane.Lucero@state.nm.us] i 1 v'ORTATjOi • 

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2011 12:29 PM •'.] i OF^RA: ICS'S 

To: Swanson, Brian (OST) 

Cc: David Jones (djon8S@pacificwings.com); greg@pacificwings.cofn. ,.,p ^^ ^ ^-^ ^ 

Subject: Clarification from the New Mexico Aviation Division ' • '••^'- -'• i- Ub 

Mr. Swanson -

The New Mexico Aviation Division received a call yesterday morning from Mr. Greg Kahlstorf of New Mexico Airlines. 

He had a concern about the comments we made regarding the EAS proposals for our State. I am writing this to clarify our 

comments dated March 4"", 2011. 

The New Mexico Aviation Division is not implying that a pressurized aircraft is safe and an unpressurized one is not. 

However, we feel that any EAS community is entitled to the minimum aircraft requirements as outlined in the USDOT 

HAS statutes. IF A NEW MEXICO EAS COMMUNITY CHOOSES TO WAIVE THE AIRCRAFT 

REQUIREMENT. THE NEW MEXICO AVIATION DIVISION SUPPORTS THE DECISION OF THE 

COMMUNITY. It is the preference of the New Mexico Aviation Division to have a pressurized multi-engine aircraft on 

any EAS route due to the terrain, weather and related hazards throughout our State. The New Mexico Aviation Division's 

comment merely states a PREFERENCE, and by no means does it imply anything about pressurized vs. un-pressurized 

aircraft, the safety record of a particular operator, aircraft, route or facility. 

The New Mexico Aviation Division supports the EAS program and the communities it serves. We would like to note that 

the New Mexico Aviation Division is not a regulatory body. We facilitate and advise on matters of aviation in New 

Mexico. We defer to the FAA and Federal Aviation Regulations in all matters of airport and aircraft operation. We were 

solicited comments in these EAS proposals and noted our observations accordingly. 

If you have any questions or need any additional information, please let me know. 

Thanks. 

Jane 

Jane M. iMcero, AfCP 

Acting Aviation Division Director 

Airport Development Administrator 

New Mexico Aviation Division 

P.O. Box 9830 

Albuquerque, NM 87119 

Phone: 505-244-1788 ext. 111 

Cell: 505-795-5838 

Fax: 505-244-1790
#### § 72.48 Federal coordination.

Applicants requesting UPARR assistance under one of the three grant categories shall investigate the possibilities of administrative and/or funding coordination with other Federal programs. Higher priority is given to proposals which relate to a comprehensive neighborhood revitalization strategy, including, but not limited to programs such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Neighborhood Self-Help program.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Northern Star Financial, Inc. and Subsidiary (the“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, GeraldW. Eick, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, and I, Thomas P. Stienessen,Chief Executive Officer and President, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
|   | By     | /s/ Thomas P. Stienessen                |   |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   | Thomas P. Stienessen, CEO and President |
|   |   | Northern Star Financial, Inc.           |
|   |   | May 13, 2004                            |
|   |   |                                    |
|   | By     | /s/ Gerald W. Eick                      |   |
|   |   | Gerald W. Eick, CFO and Treasurer       |
|   |   | Northern Star Financial, Inc.           |
|   |   | May 13, 2004                            |

 

----
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT SEPT 9, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 08- 1054 7 Non-A rgum ent Calendar

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 05-00158 -CV -CA P-1 CATHLEEN GARY, Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll ee, ve rs us DEKALB COUNTYGOVERNMENT, et al ., Defen da nt s, VERNON JONES, CEO, THOMAS BROWN, GRAHAM, MOSES ECTOR, EDDIE MOODY, Defen da nt s- App el la nt s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg ia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (S ep te m be r 9, 200 8)2

Be fo re MA RC U S, W IL SO N and P RY O R, Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: D e K a l b C o u n ty o f

f i c i a l s Ve rn o n J o n e s , Th o mas B r o w n , Ed d i e M o o dy, L oui s G raham , and M ose s E ct or appe al the de nia l of

the ir m oti on t o di sm iss Cat hl een Gary ’s com

pl ai nt ba se d o n q ua li fie d i m m un it y . See 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 . The district court concluded that the officials failed to allege that they we re en g ag edi n d i s cr et i o n ary fu n ct i o n s wh en th ey p er fo rmedth e a ct s al l eg edi n Ga ry’s c o mp l a i n t . We a f

f i rm. The off icials raise tw o issu es for r eview. W e have j urisdictio n to review
w he the r the of

fi ci al s are e nti tle d to qua lif ie d im m uni ty . S ee 28 U . S. C. § 12 91; D al ry m ple v. Re no, 334 F . 3d 9 91, 994 ( 11th C ir . 200 3) . W e re vie wde nov o th e denial of qualified imm

unityand acce pt the factual allegations in the com plaint as true and construe the facts in the light m ost favorable to the plainti ff. Id. W e lack j urisdictio n to review the off icials’ argum ent that Gar y ’ s com plaint fails to state a claim for r elief. K och v. Rugg, 221 F. 3d 12 83, 1296 (11t h Cir. 2000 ). T he of fi ci al s arg ue on a

ppe al that the y

w er e en ga ge d inthe ir

r es pe ct ive dis cr et ion ar

y f unc tio ns f

or D eK al b C ounty , but

the of fi ci al s di d no t a lle ge in the ir
m otion to dism iss that th ey we re per form ing di scretionary functions. See Hol lo m an ex rel . Hol lo m an v. Harl an d, 3 70 F.3d12 52 , 12 63 –6 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 4) .3

T he of fi ci al s a lso arg ue that C athle enG ar y did not ide nti fy w hic h of fi ci al or of fic ia ls co m

m it te d a ct io ns th atvi ol at edhe r co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, b ut we di sa gr ee. Although Gary

did no t identify

which offic ial or officia ls com m itted acts that vio la te d he r ri ght s, w he n r ea d li be ra lly , se e T hom as v. G a. S ta te Bd . of P ar dons and Paroles, 881 F.2d 1032 , 1033 (11th Cir. 1989), G ary ’ s com plaint alleges that the nam ed

of fi ci al s im plante d ade vic e in h er

body that vi olate s he r ri ght

to privacy under the First A m endm ent and consti tutes an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Am endm ent. N o m atter how fanciful G ary ’ s com plaint appears t o b e , th e r e c o r dd o e s n o ts up p o rtaf i n d i n g o f qu a l i f i e di mm u n i ty. AFFIRMED.
#### John Tiernan, Respondent, *v.*Norman E. Mack, Appellant.

*Tiernan*v. *Mack,*115 App. Div. 921, appeal dismissed.

(Argued November 18, 1907;

decided November 26, 1907.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered November 21, 1906, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to compel plaintiff to accept the answer of the defendant.

The motion was made upon the ground that the appeal was unauthorized and had not been allowed by the Appellate Division.

*Sjpencer Brownell*for motion.

*F. T. Oahill*opposed.

Motion granted and appeal dismissed, with costs, and ten dollars costs of motion.
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

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 of MetroCorp Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David
D. Rinehart, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.     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 operating results of the
Company.

|                                                                                              |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ DAVID D. RINEHART

David D. Rinehart
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer |  |
#### L. H. Roscoe *vs.*J. G. Sawyer.

May Term, 1899.

Present: Rowell, Tyler, Munson, Start, Thompson and Watson, JJ.

Opinion filed May 26,1899.

The facts found are inconsistent with one another and afford no basis for a judgment in the plaintiff’s favor.

Case for deceit. Trial by court, at the March term, 1899, Chittenden county, *Taft,*C. J., presiding. *Proforma*judgment for the plaintiff for $96.04, damages, and costs. The defendant excepted.

*George M. Powers*for the defendant.

*L. F. Wilbur*and *Brown & Macomber*for the plaintiff.

Rowell, J.

This is case for deceit in obtaining credit by false representations. But the facts found cuff one another so that they cannot be said to show that credit was thus obtained. Although some of them show that it was, others show that it was not. Thus, it is expressly found that after *368the time of the false representations, the plaintiff sold the goods in question to be paid for on delivery, and that he insisted upon payment C. O. D., and that payments were made by the defendant as a result of the plaintiff’s attempt to collect pay therefor as fast as they were sold. With this finding it is impossible to say that the defendant obtained credit by reason of the false representations.

*Jtidgment reversed, and judgment for the defendant.*
____________ 

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

USCA Case #22-5140 Document #1950160 Filed: 06/10/2022 Page 1 of 1 

United States Court of Appeals 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT 

No. 22-5140 September Term, 2021 

1:21-cv-00406-TJK 

Filed On: June 10, 2022 [1950160] 

Campaign Legal Center, 

Appellee 

v. 

Federal Election Commission, 

Appellee 

Heritage Action for America, 

 Appellant 

Consolidated with 22-5167 

O R D E R 

It is ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that these cases be consolidated. 

The deadlines established in case No. 22-5140 by order of May 24, 2022 remain in 

effect. 

FOR THE COURT: 

Mark J. Langer, Clerk 

BY: /s/ 

Tatiana A. Magruder 

Deputy Clerk
<PAGE>

            EXHIBIT (15) LETTER RE: UNAUDITED FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Board of Directors and Shareholder
Park-Ohio Industries, Inc.

     We are aware of the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements (Form S-4 Nos. 333-43005 and 333-83117) of Park-Ohio
Industries, Inc., for the registration of its 9.25% Senior Subordinated Notes
due 2007 of our report dated August 12, 2003 relating to the unaudited
consolidated interim financial statements of Park-Ohio Industries, Inc., which
are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Cleveland, Ohio
August 12, 2003

                                        22
1 The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr ., Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-3942

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Damon Flamont Smith, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: August 7, 2007 Filed: August 10, 2007

___________ Before BYE, RILEY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. In this direct criminal appeal of his 180-month sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), Damon Flamont Smith challenges the district court’s 1 determination that his three prior Missouri convictions for first-degree tampering with an autom obile by operation are “violent felonies” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1).2 In a submission under Federal Rule of Appellate Pro cedure 28(j), Smith draws our attention to Leocal v. Ashcroft , 543 U.S. 1, 9-11 (2004) (construing “crime of violence” for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 16(b) to re quire substantial risk of use of force). Smith’s reliance, however , is misplaced. See Johnson , 417 F.3d at 996 n.4 (“violent felony” under § 924(e) differs from definition at issue in Leocal ). -2- Smith’s argument is unavailing. SeeUnited States v. Johnson , 417 F.3d 990, 999 (8th Cir. 2005) (holding that risks associ ated with Missouri offense of tampering by operation “are sufficient to warrant cla ssifying it as a violent felony” for purposes of § 924(e)), cert. denied , 127 S. Ct. 285 (2006); United States v. Leathers , 354 F.3d 955, 959 (8th Cir. 2004) (one panel cannot overrule decision of another). 2
Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________
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 of Prosperity Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2010
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Zalman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. 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
operating results of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/David Zalman        
|David Zalman           
|Chief Executive Officer
|May 10, 2010
###### Editorial Note on [Part 1926](/current/title-29/part-1926?toc=1)

#### Editorial Notes:

1. At [44 FR 8577](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-8577), Feb. 9, 1979, and corrected at [44 FR 20940](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/44-FR-20940), Apr. 6, 1979, OSHA reprinted without change the entire text of [29 CFR part 1926](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1926) together with certain General Industry Occupational Safety and Health Standards contained in [29 CFR part 1910](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/part-1910), which have been identified as also applicable to construction work. This republication developed a single set of OSHA regulations for both labor and management forces within the construction industry.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 1926 appear at [84 FR 21597](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/84-FR-21597), May 14, 2019.

#### § 1926.1090 Equipment.

Note:

The requirements applicable to construction work under this section are identical to those set forth at [§ 1910.430 of this chapter](/on/2024-09-23/title-29/section-1910.430).

[[61 FR 31432](https://www.federalregister.gov/citation/61-FR-31432), June 20, 1996]