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

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the September 30, 2000 unaudited financial statements and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                     44,232,000
<SECURITIES>                               60,683,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              18,829,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (1,612,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 3,355,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          130,100,000
<PP&E>                                    192,595,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (27,578,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            320,488,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      40,149,000
<BONDS>                                   150,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                       36,000
<OTHER-SE>                                119,407,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              320,488,000
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          100,127,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              82,818,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (6,077,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              664,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         14,354,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             8,368,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                3,982,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         4,386,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                4,386,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.12


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.6**Exhibit 32.6 Section 906 OF Sarbanes-Oxley Act — CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**SIPEX CORPORATIONCERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002In connection with the Annual Report of Sipex Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for theperiod ended December 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Clyde R. Wallin, Senior Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officerand Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adapted pursuant to ss.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 theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as anexhibit accompanying such Report and shall not be deemed filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934.       /s/ Clyde R. Wallin         Clyde R. Wallin    Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President, Finance    June 22, 2007
§ 190.01-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart, with the exception of § 190.01-90, shall apply to all vessels contracted for on or after March 1, 1968.
( b ) Vessels contracted for prior to March 1, 1968, shall meet the requirements of § 190.01-90.
<PAGE>
                          CENTRAL FEDERAL CORPORATION


                                  Exhibit 32.2
                            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 Central Federal Corporation (the
"Corporation") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Kelley L. Nanna, Treasurer of the Corporation, 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 this Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
          of the Corporation.


Dated:  November 14, 2003               By: /s/ Kelley L. Nanna
                                            -----------------------------------
                                            Kelley L. Nanna, CPA
                                            Treasurer
                                            (Principal Financial Officer)











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

                                       24
#### § 201.76 Applications for Government aid.

Applications for operating-differential subsidies, charter of Government-owned vessels, and other types of Government aid shall conform to the requirements set forth in the various general orders and other regulations of the Administration specifically provided therefor.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Civil No. 5:14-cv-11764

Plaintiff, Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen

vs.

ONE (1) PIPER CHEYENNE PA-42-1000

AIRCRAFT, BEARING TAIL NUMBER N3SP,

SERIAL NUMBER 42-5527018, INCLUDING

ALL SETS OF KEYS, FLIGHT LOGS AND

MAINTENANCE LOGS; 

Defendant in Rem.

__________________________________________________/

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that service of the Complaint for Forfeiture, Warrant of 

Arrest and Notice In Rem and this Certificate of Service has been made by 

Paralegal Christine Ruggeri on May 20, 2014, upon the following individual(s) by 

certified and regular mail, by placing same in an envelope, postage prepaid, and 

depositing said envelope(s) in the United States Mail addressed to the following:

Heriberto Medrano, Esq.

On Behalf of Cronoss Servicios Estrategicos De Negocios SA DE,

Oscar Geronimo Hernandez-Martinez and Ivan De Jesus Garcia-Alvardo

2009 E. Harrison Avenue, Suite B

Harlingen, TX 78550

Chase Air, Inc.

Attn: Charles Chase

20441 Eastwood

Harper Woods, MI 48225

4:14-cv-11764-LVP-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/20/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 23
2

Steven T. Plomaritis, D.O. A & E Leasing, LLC

28801 Schoenherr Rd., Ste. 3 Attn: Dr. Steven Plomaritis

Warren, MI 48088 860 Lake Shore Drive

Grosse Pointe Shores, MI 48236

Carlos Leasing, LLC

Attn: Carlos Huerta-Martinez and

Xavier De La Fuenta

3511 Silverside Road, Ste. 105

Wilmington, DE 19810

S/JONATHAN J.C. GREY

JONATHAN J.C. GREY

Assistant United States Attorney

211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 226-9116

jonathan.grey@usdoj.gov

(Illinois Bar No. 6292918)

4:14-cv-11764-LVP-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/20/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 24
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20563

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaint iffAppellee,

versus

ANGELA SMITH,

DefendantAppellant.

----------------------------------------------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CR-12-1

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

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Angela Smith appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for

po ssession with the intent to distribute a quantity of crack cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §

841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B). Finding no reversible error, we AFFIRM. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D

September 30, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III

ClerkSmith argues tha t, in light of U nited States v. Booker

, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005)

, the district

court reversibly erred in imposing a sentence ut ilizing the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. Smith

contends that she preserved the issue at her sentencing hearing by citing Blakely v. Washington

, 124

S. Ct. 2531 (2004), in connection with a request she made t o the court that did not involve the

court’s determination of her sentence. This argument lacks merit because Smith’s request was not

relevant to her invocati on of B lakely and also because counsel stated that there was no defense

objection to the presentence report.

Since Smith did not preserve a Booker issue, we review only for plain e rror. See United

States v. Mares

, 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-

9517). Application of the Guidelines as mandatory in determining a defendant’s sentence is plain or

obvious error after Booker

. S ee United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732-34 (5th

Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). However, Smith cannot show that

the error affected her substa nt ial rights because the record does not indicate that the district court

would have imposed a lower sentence under an advisory, rather than a mandatory, guideline scheme.

Therefore, Smith is not entitled to relief on grounds of plain error. See id. at 733-34.

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in
the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-111966, 333-81876, 333-103241
 and 333-32225) of Digital Video Systems, Inc. and the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (file Nos. 333-65598, 333-103243,
 and 333-39211) of Digital Video Systems, Inc. of our report dated March
29, 2004 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule
included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP
   Palo Alto, California
                   April 13, 2004

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT C. DENHAM, Jr.,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

RICHARD L. CEASE; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 35105

D.C. No. 2:14

- cv

- 00281

- RMP

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016 **

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN , Circuit Judges.

Robert C. Denham, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action challenging his 1973 state conviction for

second degree assault. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

de novo the district c ourt’s dismissal based on the applicable statu t e of limitations

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 35105

Fink v. Shelder , 192 F.3d 911, 91 3

- 14 (9th Cir. 1999) . We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Denham’s action as barred by the

applicable three

- year statute of limitations. See W ash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080

(three

- year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Bagley v. CMC Real

Estate Corp.

, 923 F.3d 758, 76 1

- 6 2 (9th Cir. 1991) (a § 1983 claim accrues when

the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury that forms the basis of the

action)

.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in taking judicial notice of the

state court documents from Denham’s criminal case. See Lee v. City of Los

Angeles , 250 F.3d 668, 688

- 90 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review).

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.2

Certification of the
                  Chief Financial Officer

I, H. Ravi Brar certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pac-West Telecomm, Inc.
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not
contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which
such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by
this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and
other financial information included in this report, fairly present in
all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash
flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and
have:
5. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is
being prepared;
6. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions
about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;
and
7. disclosed in this report any change in the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter
in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected or is reasonably
likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting; and
8. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
function):
9. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
10. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have  a significant role in the registrant's
internal controls over financial reporting.



Date:  August 10, 2004

/s/ H. Ravi Brar

_______________________________

H. Ravi Brar

Chief Financial Officer and Vice President Human Resources
§ 27.301 What are the requirements for fire pumps, fire mains, and fire hoses on towing vessels? By April 29, 2005, you must provide for your towing vessel either a self-priming, power-driven, fixed fire-pump, a fire main, and hoses and nozzles in accordance with paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section; or a portable pump, and hoses and nozzles, in accordance with paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section. ( a ) The fixed fire-pump must be capable of— ( 1 ) Delivering water simultaneously from the two highest hydrants, or from both branches of the fitting if the highest hydrant has a Siamese fitting, at a pitot-tube pressure of at least 344 kPa (50 psi) and a flow rate of at least 300 lpm (80 gpm); and
( 2 ) Being energized remotely from a safe place outside the engine room and from the pump.
( b ) All valves necessary for the operation of the fire main must be kept in the open position or must be capable of operation from the same place where the remote fire pump control is located.
( c ) The fire main must have a sufficient number of fire hydrants with attached hose to reach any part of the machinery space using a single length of fire hose.
( d ) The hose must be lined commercial fire-hose, at least 40mm (1.5 inches) in diameter, 15 meters (50 feet) in length, and fitted with a nozzle made of corrosion-resistant material capable of providing a solid stream and a spray pattern.
( e ) The portable fire pump must be self-priming and power-driven, with— ( 1 ) A minimum capacity of at least 300 lpm (80 gpm) at a discharge gauge pressure of not less than 414 kPa (60 psi), measured at the pump discharge;
( 2 ) A sufficient amount of lined commercial fire hose at least 40mm (1.5 inches) in diameter and 15 meters (50 feet) in length, immediately available to attach to it so that a stream of water will reach any part of the vessel; and
( 3 ) A nozzle made of corrosion-resistant material capable of providing a solid stream and a spray pattern.
( f ) You must stow the pump with its hose and nozzle outside of the machinery space.
[USCG-2000-6931, 69 FR 34069, June 18, 2004, as amended by USCG-2014-0688, 79 FR 58279, Sept. 29, 2014]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-7776
MAURICE ANTONIO BARNES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF MARYLAND; SEWALL SMITH, Warden, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-1279-CCB) Submitted: February 12, 1998 Decided: March 4, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Maurice Antonio Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court'sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Barnes v. Maryland , No. CA-97-1279-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 24, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

Juan Olaya is charged in a multi-defendant RICO conspiracy. He is also charged with 

numerous counts of assault with a dangerous weapon in aid of racketeering and use and carry of 

a firearm during, and in relation to, a crime of violence. 

Back in January 2017, Olaya moved to suppress cell phone data, including cell-site 

location data. (ECF No. 154.) In that motion, Olaya stated, “Defendant acknowledges that this 

Court is required to deny this motion because the Sixth Circuit has considered and rejected the 

arguments raised herein in United States v. Carpenter, 819 F.3d 880 (6th Cir. 2016). Defendant 

makes this motion to preserve the issue for possible review by the Sixth Circuit en banc or the 

United States Supreme Court.” (Id.) As Olaya hoped, in 2018, the Supreme Court reversed the 

Sixth Circuit’s decision in Carpenter. Although expressly noting that its holding did not extend 

to all types of cell-site location data, the Supreme Court held that the Government needed a 

warrant to obtain the cell-site location data at issue in Carpenter. See 138 S. Ct. 2206, 2220 

(2018). 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 

v. 

 

JUAN OLAYA, D-2, 

 Defendant. 

Case No. 15-cr-20200 

Honorable Laurie J. Michelson 

Magistrate Judge David R. Grand 

ORDER DENYING RENEWED MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 

RESULTING FROM COLLECTION OF CELL PHONE DATA [408] 
2 

Following the Supreme Court’s decision, Olaya “renew[ed] his motion to suppress 

evidence resulting from the collection of cell phone data” obtained through orders under the 

Stored Communication Act and not by warrant. (ECF No. 408, PageID.6320.) The Government 

opposed the motion (ECF No. 418) and the Court heard oral argument on February 3, 2020. 

For the reasons stated more fully on the record in the Court’s oral ruling, Olaya’s 

renewed motion is DENIED. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 7, 2020 

s/Laurie J. Michelson 

LAURIE J. MICHELSON 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 94 (Wednesday, May 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27635-27636]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2395]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Clinical Science Research and Development Service Cooperative 
Studies Scientific Merit Review Board; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act)

[[Page 27636]]

that a meeting of the Clinical Science Research and Development Service 
Cooperative Studies Scientific Merit Review Board will be held on June 
13, 2007, in the Capitol Room 5th Floor at the International Square 
Center, 1875 I Street NW., Washington, DC. The meeting is scheduled to 
begin at 8:30 a.m. and end at 4 p.m.
    The Board advises the Chief Research and Development Officer 
through the Director of the Clinical Science Research and Development 
Service on the relevance and feasibility of proposed studies, the 
adequacy of the protocols and the scientific validity and propriety of 
technical details, including protection of human subjects.
    The session will be open to the public from 8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m. for 
the discussion of administrative matters and the general status of the 
program. The session will be closed from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. for the 
Board's review of research and development applications.
    During the closed portion of the meeting, discussions and 
recommendations will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting 
the studies, staff and consultant critiques of research proposals and 
similar documents, and the medical records of patients who are study 
subjects, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. As provided by section 10(d) 
of Public Law 92-463, as amended, closing portions of this meeting is 
in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (c)(9)(B).
    Those who plan to attend should contact Dr. Grant Huang, Deputy 
Director, Cooperative Studies Program (125), Department of Veterans 
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420 at (202) 254-
0183.

    Dated: May 9, 2007.

    By direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-2395 Filed 5-15-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M