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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                            4352
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                  7200
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      19075
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                           36095
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                             36083
<LOANS>                                          52653
<ALLOWANCE>                                        625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  123220
<DEPOSITS>                                       86381
<SHORT-TERM>                                      5000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               1174
<LONG-TERM>                                      18094
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          4509
<OTHER-SE>                                        8062
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  123220
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                   2634
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 1445
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   331
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                  4410
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                                1428
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                2066
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                             2344
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (34)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                   1570
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    973
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         603
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       603
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.51
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     4.1
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   106
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    757
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   628
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       23
<RECOVERIES>                                        20
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  625
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               368
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            257
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, James E. Declusin,****certify that:   1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form**10-K of Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., New CF&I, Inc., andCF&I Steel, L.P.;   2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial 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, fairlypresent 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 officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:     a) 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;     b) 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     c) 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 isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and   5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal 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):      a) 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     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ James E. Declusin  James E. Declusin
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 3, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 36512]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3263]



[[Page 36512]]

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

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD


Agenda; Sunshine Meeting Act

Time and Date: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, July 10, 2007.

Place: NTSB Conference Center, 429 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 
20594.

Status: The one item is open to the public.

Matter To Be Considered

    7901 Highway Accident Report--Ceiling Collapse in the Interstate 90 
Connector Tunnel, Boston, Massachusetts, July 10, 2006 (HWY-06-MH-024).
    News Media Contact: Telephone: (202) 314-6100.
    Individuals requesting specific accommodations should contact Chris 
Bisett at (202) 314-6305 by Friday, July 6, 2007.
    The public may view the meeting via a live or archived webcast by 
accessing a link under ``News & Events'' on the NTSB home page at 
www.ntsb.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vicky D'Onofrio, (202) 314-6410.

    Dated: June 29, 2007.
Vicky D'Onofrio,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 07-3263 Filed 6-29-07; 3:24 pm]
BILLING CODE 7533-01-M
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: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending January 5, 2013

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
EXHIBIT 11

                               Safety-Kleen Corp.
                 Statement of Computation of Per Share Earnings
                     ($ in thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

                                                            Three Months Ended
                                                               November 30,
                                                           1999         1998

Basic:

   Income available to common stockholders ........     $  24,707    $ 27,772
                                                        =========    ========

   Weighted average common stock outstanding (000s)       100,637      87,844
                                                        =========    ========

   Basic income per share .........................     $    0.25    $   0.32
                                                        =========    ========


Diluted:

   Net income .....................................     $  24,707    $ 27,772
   Add back: interest expense on conversion of
     subordinated convertible debenture ...........           --        2,625
   Income available to common stockholders, plus
     assumed conversions ..........................     $  24,707    $ 30,397
                                                        =========    ========

   Weighted average common stock outstanding (000s)       100,637      87,844
   Dilutive effect of stock options ...............          --            65
   Dilutive effect of conversion of $350,000,000

     subordinated convertible debenture at $15.00 .          --        23,333
                                                        ---------    --------
   Diluted average shares outstanding .............       100,637     111,242
                                                        =========    ========

   Diluted income per share .......................     $ 0.25       $   0.27
                                                        =========    ========
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NOS. 02-13-00090-CR

02-13-00091-CR 

RICHARD L. MEADOR APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Richard L. Meador attempts to appeal from his convictions for 

robbery by threats and evading arrest with a vehicle. Meador pleaded guilty to 

both offenses pursuant to plea bargains, and in accordance with the plea 

bargains, the trial court sentenced him to ten years’ and two years’ confinement, 

respectively, and ordered that the sentences run concurrently. The trial court’s 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

certification of his right to appeal in each case states that the case “is a pleabargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2). 

On March 8, 2013, we notified Meador that these appeals could be 

dismissed based on the trial court’s certifications unless he or any party desiring 

to continue the appeals filed a response on or before March 18, 2013, showing 

grounds for continuing the appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f). No 

response was filed.

In accordance with the trial court’s certifications, we therefore dismiss 

these appeals. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: May 16, 2013
#### ELLEN NICHOLS, Respondent, *v.*THE BROOKLYN CITY RAILROAD COMPANY, Appellant.

*SMdence in an action for injuries caused by defendant's negligence*— *decla/i'aiion of plaintiff as to pains*— *when admissible to characterize and explain his acts.*

This action was brought by the plaintiff to recover damages for a personal injury alleged to have been occasioned by the defendant’s negligence. Upon the trial a girl, who had slept with the plaintiff some three months after the injury, was allowed to testify that the plaintiff would sit on the edge of the bed and complain of pain in her arm and shoulder.

*Held,*that the plaintiff’s declaration was properly admitted as tending to characterize and explain her act in so sitting upon the bed. (Pratt, J., dissenting.)

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.

The action was brought to recover damages for injuries sustained by the plaintiff while leaving one of the defendant’s cars.

*Winchester*Britton, for the appellant.'

*Charles J.*Patterson, for the respondent.

Barnard, P. J.:

No error is presented by this appeal sufficient to call for a reversal of the judgment. The plaintiff was injured in consequence of the negligence of the defendant. She was rendered incapable of labor for some four months; has nearly lost the use of one eye; suffers constant pain day and night, and for four weeks coughed and spit blood. The -jury have assessed the damages at $1,900. It is not so large as to .suggest any passion or prejudice. An appellate court cannot say it is beyond a moderate compensation. The plaintiff was a witness upon the trial and testified to the pain with which she was afflicted. She produced one Kate Creahan, a girl who had slept with her some three months after the injury at the house of a Mrs. King. This girl testified that the plaintiff would sit on the side of the bed, and that while so sitting she complained of pain in her arm and shoulder. The testimony of the fact of sitting upon the side of the bed had no relevancy without the expression of pain *438which characterized the act. It was part of the act, and as such admissible to characterize and explain it. *(Swift*v. *Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins.*Co., 63 N. Y., 186.) The evidence of the declaration was admissible to explain the act and ascribe a cause for it. The judgment therefore must be affirmed, with costs.

Dykman, J., concurred.

Pratt, J., dissented on question of admissibility of evidence of declarations.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs.
§ 1103.4 Initial appearances. Practitioners shall file a declaration that they are authorized to represent the particular party on whose behalf they appear at the time of making an initial appearance, in all proceedings. This requirement can be met by: ( a ) Entering the practitioner's name as the representative of an applicant in the appropriate space on an application form;
( b ) Signing any complaint, petition, protest, reply or other pleading with a designation following the practitioner's signature that he is the representative of a party;
( c ) Entering an appearance at any hearing on the form provided; or
( d ) Filing a letter with the Chief, Section of Administration, Office of Proceedings, Surface Transportation Board stating that practitioner is authorized to represent a party. The party represented, their address, and the docket number of the proceeding must also be identified at the time of the initial appearance.
[47 FR 49549, Nov. 1, 1982, as amended at 74 FR 52906, Oct. 15, 2009]
#### In the Matter of Daniel D. Chamberlain, *a Supposed*Lunatic.

Inquisition, order affirming same and order directing commission affirmed, with costs and disbursements. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Bumgardner 

Argued at Richmond, Virginia 

GARY W. WRIGHT, S/K/A 

 GARY WALTER WRIGHT 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY 

v. Record No. 0672-97-3 JUDGE SAM W. COLEMAN III 

 FEBRUARY 24, 1998 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY 

Thomas H. Wood, Judge 

 Robert T. Garnett, Assistant Public Defender, 

for appellant. 

 Linwood T. Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney 

General (Richard Cullen, Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee. 

 Gary W. Wright was convicted in a bench trial for breaking 

and entering a dwelling with the intent to commit larceny therein 

in violation of Code § 18.2-91. The sole issue on appeal is 

whether the evidence is sufficient to identify Wright as the 

person who broke into and entered the dwelling. Finding the 

evidence sufficient, we affirm the conviction. 

 When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on 

appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the 

Commonwealth, granting to it all reasonable inferences fairly 

deducible therefrom. Martin v. Commonwealth, 4 Va. App. 438, 

443, 358 S.E.2d 415, 418 (1987). 

 Viewed accordingly, the evidence proved that David Walker 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

vacated his house after it was damaged by flood waters. Late one 

afternoon, he returned to inspect the house. Walker testified 

that he looked through a window and saw Gary W. Wright walking 

around the inside of the house. A few minutes later, he saw 

Wright and another man walking between his house and a vacant 

house next door. Walker inspected his house and found that the 

back door which he had secured with boards had been forcibly 

opened. Walker entered the house and determined that a sewing 

machine was missing. He also noticed that a step ladder and a 

can of construction material had been placed under a ceiling fan 

in the living room. Walker testified that he had known Wright 

for twenty years and that he was certain that Wright was the man 

he had seen walking through the house. 

 Appellant contends that Walker was mistaken in identifying 

Wright as the person inside the house because he only saw the 

intruder for "a couple of seconds" and his ability to see into 

the house would have been impaired by the bright afternoon 

sunlight. However, the trial court, sitting as the finder of 

fact, believed Walker's testimony. "The trial judge's 

determination of the credibility of witnesses and the weight to 

be given to their testimony are questions exclusively within the 

province of the [trier of fact]." Long v. Commonwealth, 8 Va. 

App. 194, 199, 379 S.E.2d 473, 476 (1989) (alteration in 

original) (citation omitted). The Commonwealth's evidence was 

competent, was not inherently incredible, and is sufficient to 
- 3 - 

support beyond a reasonable doubt the trial court's conclusion 

that Wright was guilty of breaking and entering Walker's house 

with the intent to commit a larceny therein. 

 Accordingly, we affirm the conviction. 

 Affirmed.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, June 28, 1995 (88), Para 88.33 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1060]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.88.33  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. PORTER:

       Page 78, after line 6, insert the following new section:

                   LIMITATION ON ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

       Sec. 564. Not more than $21,000,000 of the funds 
     appropriated in this Act under the heading ``Economic Support 
     Fund'' may be made available to the Government of Turkey.

It was decided in the

Yeas

247

affirmative

Nays

155
```
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: 2
Federal Reserve Bank of: New York

## Filings received during the week ending June 8, 2013

|Filer                   | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    | End of Comment Period                             
|----------------------- | ------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | --------------------------------------------------
|INVESTORS BANCORP, INC. | * 4c8         | Investors Bancorp, MHC and Investors Bancorp, Inc., both of Short Hills, New Jersey, providing notice pursuant to Section 4(c)(8) of the BHC Act and Section 225.24 of Regulation Y, to acquire Gateway Community Financial Corporation,  MHC and Gateway Community Financial Corporation, and their wholly-owned subsidiary, GCF Bank, all of Sewell, New Jersey. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:07/08/2013
|Newspaper:              | Not available
|Federal Register:       | 07/08/2013   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

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

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 134 (Friday, July 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 38619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3411]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Security Work Order Collaboration

    Notice is hereby given that, on April 26, 2007, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Security Work Order Collaboration 
(``SWOC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and 
objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties 
to the venture are: BMW of North America, LLC, Woodcliff Lake, NJ; NTRU 
Cryptosystems, Inc., Acton, MA; TechnoCom Corporation, Encino, CA; and 
Telcordia Technologies, Inc., Piscataway, NJ. The general area of 
SWOC's planned activity is the implementation of various software 
security elements relating to the vehicle infrastructure integration 
system, a national infrastructure to enable data collection and 
exchange in real time between vehicles, and between vehicles and the 
roadway.

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-3411 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M