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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,475
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,175
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,075
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,831
<PP&E>                                          13,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,654
<BONDS>                                          3,597
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           176
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,428
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,531
<SALES>                                         66,996
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                66,996
<CGS>                                           37,805
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                19,177
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,588
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,505
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                  77,835
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    82,756
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     4.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32

Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

Relating to a Periodic Report
Containing Financial Statements

I, William J. Reuter, Chief Executive Officer, and Drew K. Hostetter, Chief Financial Officer, of
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, based on our knowledge:

(1) The Companys periodic report
containing financial statements on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: As of November 8, 2006



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER |  |  |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
|                        |  | 
|/s/ William J. Reuter   |  |  |  | /s/ Drew K. Hostetter  
|William J. Reuter       |  |  |  | Drew K. Hostetter      



48
# C_2012025EN.01005902.xml

| 28.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 25/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.1.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 25/59

---

Action brought on 14 November 2011 — Solar-Fabrik v OHIM (Premium L)

(Case T-583/11)

(2012/C 25/114)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Solar-Fabrik AG für Produktion und Vertrieb von solartechnischen Produkten (Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany) (represented by M. Douglas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 246/2011-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 September 2011 in Case R 246/2011-1;

| — | Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Premium L’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the mark applied for has distinctive character.

---
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ALEX H. GOMEZ, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D15-4987

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed February 2, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota 

County; Thomas Krug, Judge.

Michael Gonzalez and Henry Gonzalez of 

Law Office of Michael Gonzalez, P.A., 

Tampa, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and David Campbell, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. 

CASANUEVA, KELLY, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco

#   Board Actions 

## Actions taken during the week ending October 27, 2007

----

FormsForms  -- final Board review to extend without revision the Recordkeeping and Disclosure Requirements Associated with Securities Transactions Pursuant to Regulation H (Reg H-3) and the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act/Loan Application Register (HMDA/LAR).					-Approved, October 24, 2007 					

Regulations And PoliciesIdentity Theft Red Flags  -- final interagency regulations under the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act to require financial institutions and creditors to establish identify theft prevention programs; to require credit and debit card issuers to assess the validity of notifications of changes in address; and to provide guidance on policies and procedures for credit report users who receive a notice of address discrepancy from a consumer reporting agency (Docket No. R-1255).					-Approved, October 23, 2007 					

Testimony And StatementsSubprime Lending  -- statement by Governor Kroszner on the subprime mortgage market, Federal Reserve actions, and potential legislative responses before the House Committee on Financial Services on October 24, 2007.					-Reviewed, October 23, 2007 					

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)  Board Actions | Actions   under delegated authority  Applications and reports received:Boston | New York | Philadelphia   | Cleveland | Richmond   | AtlantaChicago | St. Louis | Minneapolis   | Kansas City | Dallas   | San Francisco
Home | Banking information and regulationAccessibility | Contact   usLast update: November 1, 2007
#### Justice v. Justice.

(Decided May 2, 1919.)

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.

1. Elections — Appeal Bond — Sufficiency.—Under Kentucky Statutes, section 1596a, subsection 12, providing that either party may appeal from the judgment by giving bond “to the clerk of the circuit court with good surety,” etc., an appeal bond executed to the appellee is sufficient.

2. Elections — Primary—Filing Certificates of Nomination — Necessity. — Kentucky Statutes, section 1456, requiring certificates of nomination to be filed with the county clerk not less than fifteen days before the election, is mandatory, and where a nominee fails to comply with the statute, the clerk of the county court has no authority to place his name on the ballot.

3. Elections — Votes—Counting Ballots. — Votes cast for a candidate not legally on the ballot cannot be counted, and a candidate who received a majority of the legal votes cast should be declared elected.

STRATTON & STEPHENS ON for appellant.

O. A. STUMP and W. W. REYNOLDS for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

William: Rogers Olay, Commissioner

Granting the petition for rehearing and reversing.

In our former opinion we held that the appeal should be dismissed because of appellant’s failure to execute the supersedeas bond required by subsection 12, sec. 1596a, Kentucky Statutes (inadvertently referred to as subsection 28, sec. 1550). Upon a re-examination of the record we find that appellant did execute a bond to appellee with good surety, conditioned for the payment of .all costs and damages that appellee might sustain by reason of the appeal.While the statute requires that the bond be executed “to the clerk,” we held in the recent case of Felts v. Edwards, 181 Ky. 287, 204 S. W. 145, that the word “to” in the statute was inadvertently used for the word “before,” and that a bond executed to the appellee was sufficient. It follows that we were in error in dismissing the appeal because a proper appeal bond had not been executed.

*131Considering the case on its merits, we find that appellee failed to file with the clerk of the Pike county court his certificate of nomination fifteen days before the regular election. The statute requiring this to be done is mandatory, and where a nominee fails to comply with the statute, the clerk of the county court has no authority to place his name on the ballot. Sec. 1456, Kentucky Statutes; Brody v. Hook, 121 S. W. 879; Daniels v. Blankenship, 198 S. W. 48; King v. MacMahan, 179 Ky. 536, 200 S. W. 956. Though appellee received a greater number of votes than appellant, the votes cast for appellee cannot be counted since his name was not lawfully on the ballot. It therefore follows that appellant, who received a majority of the legal votes cast, should have been declared elected. King v. MacMahan, *supra.*

Wherefore, the petition for rehearing is granted, the former opinion withdrawn, and the judgment reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending November 25, 2006

|Filer                           | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                           | End of Comment Period                                 
|------------------------------- | -------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------
|ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND PLC, THE | FBSEA          | The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Edinburgh, Scotland to establish a branch at 600 Steamboat Road, Greenwich, Connecticut pursuant to section 211.24(a)(1) of Regulation K. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:                      | Not available 
|Federal Register:               | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for First Quarter of 2007 (January 1, 2007 - March 31, 2007)

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2512 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit the consideration 

in the House of Representatives or the Senate of measures that appropriate funds for earmarks to private, for-profit entities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2009 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself, Mr. KIND, Mr. CAMPBELL, Mr. WALZ, Mr. 

HENSARLING, Mr. COOPER, Mr. KIRK, and Mr. SMITH of Washington) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Rules, and in addition to the Committee on the Budget, for a period to 

be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee 

concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 to prohibit 

the consideration in the House of Representatives or 

the Senate of measures that appropriate funds for earmarks to private, for-profit entities. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. EARMARK POINT OF ORDER. 

4 Section 312 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 

5 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub6 section: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2512 IH

1 ‘‘(g) EARMARK POINT OF ORDER.—(1) It shall not 

2 be in order in the House of Representatives or the Senate 

3 to consider any bill or joint resolution, or amendment 

4 thereto or conference report thereon, if that measure or 

5 any accompanying report or joint explanatory statement 

6 of managers contains any earmark for which the intended 

7 recipient is a private, for-profit entity. 

8 ‘‘(2) As used in this subsection, the term ‘earmark’ 

9 has the meaning given to the term ‘congressional earmark’ 

10 in clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Rep11 resentatives.’’. 

12 SEC. 2. SUPER MAJORITY POINT OF ORDER IN THE SEN13 ATE. 

14 Subsections (c)(1) and (d)(2) of section 904 of the 

15 Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are amended by insert16 ing ‘‘312(g),’’ after ‘‘310(d)(2),’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
# C_2013108EN.01001905.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 November 2012 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-325/12) (1)

1

2013/C 108/49

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.

1

---
DANIEL P. DRY

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 3328

__________ ___________________/

Opinion filed November 13, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. Tatiana Salvador , Judge

.

Daniel P. Dry , pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFF IRMED.

BENTON, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.3





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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Highlands Bankshares, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2010 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, James R. Edmondson, Vice President of Accounting 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, to my knowledge:





1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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

















/s/James R. Edmondson


James R. Edmondson


Vice President of Accounting


March 30, 2011





53
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN ARNOLD INDUSTRIES, INC.'S
FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      30,131,747
<SECURITIES>                                 9,436,789
<RECEIVABLES>                               43,604,041
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,752,574
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            91,130,476
<PP&E>                                     338,316,841
<DEPRECIATION>                             136,673,101
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             312,102,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       50,352,117
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    29,942,628
<OTHER-SE>                                 183,511,512
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               312,102,856
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           287,054,643
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              246,168,884
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               956,341
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             975,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             40,882,143
<INCOME-TAX>                                15,002,844
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         25,879,299
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                25,879,299
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .99
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .99
        

</TABLE>
§ 349.6 Enforcement. MARAD shall provide administrative assistance to any individual certified to be entitled to reemployment rights and benefits pursuant to chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code, made applicable by 46 App. U.S.C. 1132(a) and these regulations, who alleges in writing to MARAD the failure, refusal, or imminent failure or refusal of an employer to grant such rights or other benefits. The complaint must be sent to MARAD at the address in § 349.3. Such complaint may be in any format and shall include the name and address of the employer against whom the complaint is filed and a summary of the allegations that form the basis for the complaint. MARAD will review, investigate and attempt to resolve the complaint by taking one or more of the following actions: ( a ) *Consultation with claimant.* MARAD will communicate with the individual filing the complaint, in writing and/or by telephone or other means, to provide assistance in pursuing reemployment rights and benefits with the employer.
( b ) *Employer contact.* MARAD may contact the employer and attempt to resolve the complaint to the mutual satisfaction of the complainant and the employer.
( c ) *Consultation with Department of Labor.* If attempts by MARAD to resolve the complaint are unsuccessful, MARAD may seek advice on the matter from the U.S. Department of Labor.
( d ) *Referral to Attorney General or Merit Systems Protection Board.* MARAD will notify the complainant of an unsuccessful effort to resolve a complaint. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 4323 and 4324, if the complainant so requests, MARAD will refer to the Attorney General a complaint relating to a private or State employer, or to the Merit Systems Protection Board, for litigation, a complaint relating to a Federal executive agency employer.
* 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. 07-60840

Summary Calendar

FELIPE SOLORZANO-GIRON

Petitioner

v.

MICHAEL B MUKASEY, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A96 046 625

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Felipe Solorzano-Giron (Solorzano) petitions for review of the decision of

the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming the decision of the

immigration judge denying his application for asylum. As Solorzano has not

challenged the denial of his request for withholding of removal, any such

challenge is abandoned. See Rodriguez v. INS, 9 F.3d 408, 414 n.15 (5th Cir.

1993).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 25, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-60840

2

Solorzano argues that, as a member and leader of a labor union formed to

collect past wages from his employer,Transpac Central America, he is a member

of a “particular social group” for purposes of an application for asylum. He also

argues that the BIA erroneously foreclosed him from refugee status due to his

failure to turn to Guatemalan authorities for protection from Transpac’s death

threats.

Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s finding that Solorzano was not a

refugee. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A); 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b); Mwembie v. Gonzales,

443 F.3d 405, 414-15 (5th Cir. 2006); Majd v. Gonzales, 446 F.3d 590, 595 (5th

Cir. 2006) ; Chen v. Gonzales, 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006); Mikhael v.

INS, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997); see also In re A-M-E & J-G-U, 24 I. & N.

Dec. 69 (BIA 2007). We therefore do not address Solorzano’s second argument.

PETITION DENIED.