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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,594,610
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             1,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 10,716,852
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     31,118,750
<ALLOWANCE>                                    467,100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              46,116,598
<DEPOSITS>                                  35,029,499
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,647,617
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            151,139
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,871,211
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,557,142)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              46,116,598
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                588,206
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              174,799
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               101,651
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               864,656
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             395,137
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             412,935
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          451,721
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  467,100
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,161,026
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,118,590)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  (1,118,590)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,118,590)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.96)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.96)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                     0
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                             (467,100)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                       (467,100)


</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 160
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 160 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59785, 59786, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 160.038-4 Inspections and tests. ( a ) Portable magazine chests specified by this subpart are not ordinarily subject to regularly s scheduled factory inspections.
( b ) [Reserved]
§ 116.423 Furniture and furnishings. ( a ) For the purpose of this subpart, rooms containing “fire resistant furnishings” are considered to be those in which: ( 1 ) Furniture such as chairs, sofas, and similar items are tested and meet the requirements in UL 1056 “Fire Test of Upholstered Furniture,” or meet the requirements in § 72.05-55 in subchapter H of this chapter.
( 2 ) Case furniture such as bookshelves, desks, cabinets, counters, beds, or other freestanding furniture are constructed in accordance with the requirements in § 72.05-55 (a)(1) in subchapter H of this chapter.
( 3 ) Draperies, curtains and other similar furnishings and decorations are flame resistant. These materials must be tested in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 701 “Fire Tests for Flame Resistant Textiles and Films,” and must comply with either the small or large scale tests.
( 4 ) Rugs and carpet may be used in addition to deck coverings. Rugs and carpets must be constructed of 100 percent wool or equivalent as determined by a flame spread rating not exceeding 75 and a smoke developed rating not exceeding 100 when tested according to ASTM E 84 (incorporated by reference, see § 114.600) or have a critical radiant flux not less than 0.8 watts per square centimeter (18 BTU's per hour per square inch) when tested according to ASTM E 648 (incorporated by reference, see § 114.600) “Critical Radiant Flux of Floor-Covering Systems Using a Radiant Heat Energy Source,” and with a specific optical density not to exceed 450 in both flaming and nonflaming modes when tested according to ASTM E 662 (incorporated by reference, see § 114.600) “Specific Optical Density of Smoke generated by Solid Materials.” Also: ( i ) Rugs and carpets shall not extend up bulkheads or vertical surfaces more than 10 centimeters (4 inches) above the deck.
( ii ) Rugs and carpets are not permitted in machinery spaces, high risk service spaces, or areas where the spillage or leakage of flammable or combustible liquids is possible including areas immediately adjacent to bar service areas.
( b ) Passageways and stairway enclosures shall contain only fire resistant furnishings. In addition, all upholstered chairs, sofas, etc., in these areas, shall be tested and meet the requirements in UL 1056 or have padding and upholstery of approved fire resistant materials.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 900, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended by USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58462, Sept. 29, 2000]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7888

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CEDRIC MONTE LITTLE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (4:05-cr-00050-H-1; 4:12-cv-00182-H)

Submitted: February 21, 2013 Decided: February 26, 2013

Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Cedric Monte Little, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Cedric Monte Little seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C.A.

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion as successive and without 

authorization from this court. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of 

the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 

(2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s 

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. 

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). When the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the 

denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Little has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Additionally, we construe Little’s notice of appeal 

and informal brief as an application to file a second or 
3

successive § 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 

200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims 

based on either: (1) newly discovered evidence, not previously 

discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to 

establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found 

the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of 

constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by 

the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review. 28 U.S.C.A. 

§ 2255(h) (West Supp. 2012). Little’s claims do not satisfy 

either of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 motion.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Nextera Enterprises, Inc.
(the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

         (i)      the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company
     for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies
     with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of
     the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

     Dated: May 12, 2003            /s/ Daniel R. Fischel
                                    -----------------------------------
                                            Daniel R. Fischel
                                            Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Nextera Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Nextera
Enterprises, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
§ 111.75-17 Navigation lights. Each navigation light system must meet the following: ( a ) *Feeders.* On vessels required to have a final emergency power source by § 112.05-5(a) of this chapter, each navigation light panel must be supplied by a feeder from the emergency switchboard (see § 112.43-13). The feeder must be protected by overcurrent devices rated or set at a value of at least twice that of the navigation light panel main fuses.
( b ) *Navigation light indicator panel.* Each self-propelled vessel must have a navigation light indicator panel in the navigating bridge to control side, masthead, and stern lights. The panel must visually and audibly signal the failure of each of these navigation lights. Each light source must be connected to a separate fused branch circuit. The panel must have a fused feeder disconnect switch, and the fuses must have at least twice the rating of the largest branch circuit fuse and must be greater than the maximum panel load.
( c ) *Dual light sources.* Each self-propelled vessel must have duplicate light sources for the side, masthead, and stern lights.
( d ) *Navigation lights.* Each navigation light must meet the following: ( 1 ) Meet the technical details of the applicable navigation rules.
( 2 ) Be certified by an independent laboratory to the requirements of ANSI/UL 1104 or EN 14744 (incorporated by reference; see § 110.10-1 of this subchapter) or an equivalent standard under § 110.20-1 of this subchapter. Portable battery powered navigation lights need only be certified to the requirements of ANSI/UL 1104 applicable to those lights.
( 3 ) Be labeled with a label stating the following: ( i ) “MEETS __________.” (Insert the identification name or number of the standard under paragraph (d)(2) of this section to which the light was type-tested.)
( ii ) “TESTED BY __________.” (Insert the name or registered certification mark of the independent laboratory that tested the fixture to the standard under paragraph (d)(2) of this section).
( iii ) Manufacturer's name.
( iv ) Model number.
( v ) Visibility of the light in nautical miles.
( vi ) Date on which the fixture was type-tested.
( vii ) Identification of bulb used in the compliance test.
( 4 ) If it is a flashing light, have its intensity determined by the formula:
Ie = G/(0.2 + t2−t1) Where Ie = Luminous Intensity. G = Integral of Idt evaluated between the limits of t1 and t2. t1 = Time in seconds of the beginning of the flash. t2 = Time in seconds of the end of the flash. I = Instantaneous intensity during the flash. Note:
The limits, t1 and t2, are to be chosen so as to maximize Ie.
[CGD 74-125A, 47 FR 15236, Apr. 8, 1982, as amended by CGD 94-108, 61 FR 28282, June 4, 1996; 61 FR 33045, June 26, 1996; 62 FR 23909, May 1, 1997; USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65199, Oct. 31, 2008; USCG-2020-0075, 88 FR 16365, Mar. 16, 2023]
Editorial Note on Part 164
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 164 appear by USCG-2012-0832, 77 FR 59787, Oct. 1, 2012.

§ 164.107-2 Incorporation by reference. ( a ) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Design and Engineering Standards (CG-ENG), 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, and is available from the sources listed below. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call 202-741-6030 or go to *http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html*.
( b ) International Maritime Organization (IMO) Publishing, 4 Albert Embankment, London SE1 7SR, United Kingdom, +44 (0)20 7735 7611, *http://www.imo.org*. ( 1 ) 2010 FTP Code, International Code for Application of Fire Test Procedures, 2010 (Resolution MSC.307(88)), 2012 Edition (“FTP Code”), IBR approved for § 164.107-3(a).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
# C_2008071EN.01002501.xml

| 18.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/25

---

Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies on the lists provided for in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 243/2008 imposing certain restrictive measures on the illegal authorities of the island of Anjouan in the Union of the Comoros

(2008/C 71/08)

The Council of the European Union has established that the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I are:

| (a) | members of the illegal government of Anjouan; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

members of the illegal government of Anjouan;

| (b) | natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

natural or legal persons, entities or bodies associated with them.

Consequently, the Council has decided to enter these persons, entities and bodies on the list in Annex I.

Council Regulation (EC) No 243/2008 (1) provides for the freezing of all funds, other financial assets and economic resources belonging to the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I and that no funds and economic resources may be made available to them, whether directly or indirectly.

1

The attention of the persons, entities and bodies listed in Annex I is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites listed in Annex II to the Regulation in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for essential needs or specific payments in accordance with Article 4 of that Regulation.

The persons, entities and bodies concerned may submit at any time a request to the Council, together with any supporting documentation, that the decision to include and maintain them on the lists referred to above should be reconsidered, to the following address: Council of the European Union, rue de la Loi 175, B-1048 Brussels.

Such requests will be considered when they are received. In this respect, the attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is drawn to the regular review by the Council of the lists in accordance with Article 3 of Common Position 2008/187/CFSP.

The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in accordance with the conditions laid down in the fourth and fifth paragraphs of Article 230 of the Treaty establishing the European Community.

---

(1)  OJ L 75, 18.3.2008, p. 53.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000             JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       1,237,240                 275,751
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,612,076               1,549,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,426                   8,700
<INVENTORY>                                     40,579                  32,065
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,018,530               1,888,725
<PP&E>                                         424,698                 262,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                 222,893                 123,504
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,460,386               2,526,014
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,039,561               1,702,033
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        14,663                  11,701
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,405,547                 778,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,460,386               2,526,014
<SALES>                                      3,826,462               3,964,637
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,826,462               3,964,637
<CGS>                                           79,698                 402,584
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                5,519,474               3,282,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             144,780                  97,698
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,693,012)                 681,695
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,693,012)                 681,695
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,693,012)                 681,695
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.13)                    0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)                    0.04


</TABLE>
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20
- 7562

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. THOMAS BRANTLEY JENKINS, II , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. Catherine C. Eagles , District Judge. ( 1:15

- cr - 00053

- CCE

- 3 )

Submitted : April 12, 2021 Decided: April 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. John D. Bryson , WYATT EARLY HARRIS WHEELER, LLP , High Point, North Carolina, for Appellant. Matthew G.T. Martin , United States Attorney , Julie C. Domachowski , Assistant United States Attorney , OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Brantley Jenkins, II, appeals the district court’s order denying his motion
f

or compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First Step Act of 2018, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194. We review the district court’s order for abuse of discretion. United States v. Kibble , F.3d , , No. 20

- 7009, 2021 WL 1216543, at *2 (4th Cir. Apr. 1, 2021) “A district court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily or irrationally, fails to consider judicially recognized factors constraining its exercise of discretion, relies on erroneous factual or legal premises, or commits an error of law.” United States v. Dillard , 891 F.3d 151, 158 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not make an erroneous factual finding in stating that Jenkins had served less than half of his sentence, because this statement simply reflected the term imposed at sentencing without considering the good

- time credits Jenkins had earned and was projected to earn. Moreover, while the district court did not expressly address Jenkins’ argument that he did not present a danger to the community if released , it offered a detailed explanation for why the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did not support granting Jenkins’ motion and, thus, demonstrated that it “ considered the parties’ arguments and ha [d] a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority.” Chavez

- Meza v. United States , 138 S. Ct. 1959, 1964 (2018) (internal quotation marks omitted) ; see also Kibble , 2021 WL 1216543, at *4 (“[A] district court may not grant a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) without considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).3 Ther efore, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
**Exhibit 23.1**
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLICACCOUNTING FIRM**
We consent to the incorporation by reference inRegistration Statement Nos. 333-75078, 333-65632 and333-19473 of Party City Corporation and subsidiary onForm S-8 of our report dated August 21, 2003(June 30, 2004, as to the effects of the restatementdiscussed in Note 17) (which report expresses anunqualified opinion and includes explanatory paragraphs relatingto the restatement of the consolidated financial statements andthe adoption of a new accounting pronouncement), appearing inthe Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1of Party City Corporation and subsidiary for the fiscal yearended June 28, 2003.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
New York, New YorkJuly 7, 2004