alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Geologyof the upper Matanuska Valley, Alaska**
 
Report | Plates: 0102
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:791
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000960029
 
August 13, 2018
II

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 53

To express the sense of the Congress that the President should award a

Presidential Unit Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS, which was sunk on July 30, 1945.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 11, 1998

Mr. INOUYE introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice

and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

JOINT RESOLUTION

To express the sense of the Congress that the President

should award a Presidential Unit Citation to the final

crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS, which was sunk

on July 30, 1945.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3

4 SECTION. 1. PRESIDENTIAL UNIT CITATION FOR FINAL

5 CREW OF THE U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS.

6 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of the Con7 gress that the President should award a Presidential Unit

8 Citation to the final crew of the U.S.S. INDIANAPOLIS
2

SJ 53 IS

1 (CA–35) in recognition of the courage and fortitude dis2 played by the members of that crew in the face of extraor3 dinary hardship and adversity after their ship was

4 torpedoed and sunk on July 30, 1945.

5 (b) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATION.—A citation de6 scribed in subsection (a) may be made without regard to

7 any provision of law or regulation prescribing a time limi8 tation that is otherwise applicable with respect to rec9 ommendation for, or the award of, such a citation.

Æ
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Stephen Houston, Also Known as Stephan Houston, Also Known as Stefan Houston, Appellant.

[631 NYS2d 930]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered June 10, 1993, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was represented by counsel in an unrelated matter at the time that he was taken into custody and placed in a lineup. When a suspect is not represented by counsel in a particular matter, "the State has no obligation to supply counsel at investigatory lineups” *(People v Coates,*74 NY2d 244, 248). Even an explicit request for counsel at such a lineup "is insufficient to trigger an official obligation to notify defense *452counsel of the opportunity to be present at a lineup when no counsel has been otherwise engaged or appointed” *(People v LaClere,*76 NY2d 670, 673; *see, People v Hawkins,*55 NY2d 474, 487, *cert denied*459 US 846). The defendant did not retain his counsel from the unrelated matter to represent him in the instant matter. In any event, he did not explicitly request the presence of counsel at the lineup identification. Accordingly, the trial court correctly refused to suppress the lineup identification testimony *(see, People v Coates, supra; People v Brooks,*184 AD2d 518).

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion when it precluded the defendant from presenting an alibi witness who was not timely and properly noticed under CPL 250.20, and the defendant did not proffer a sufficient reason for the delay *(see, People v Caputo,*175 AD2d 290; *People v Smith,*208 AD2d 965; *People v Toro,*198 AD2d 532; *People v Peralta,*127 AD2d 803). Bracken, J. P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.
March 26, 1957

No. 60585.

#### American Viking Corp. and Sieling & Jarvis Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 214594-K.

C. D. 1830. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 6409** 

CLARENCE BUCKNER, a/k/a Mark Dave Hill , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
RONALD WALKER , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. ( 8:10

- cv - 03416

- DKC )

Submitted : July 21, 2011 Decided: July 25, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un p ublished per curiam opinion

.
Clarence Buckner, Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Clarence Buckner appeals the district court ’ s order s dismissing his civil complaint for lack of subject matt er jurisdiction and denying reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Buckner v. Walker , No. 8:10

- cv - 03416

- DKC (D. Md. Feb. 7, 2011 ; March 31 , 2011 )

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          13,062
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,481
<ALLOWANCES>                                       926
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                20,696
<PP&E>                                           9,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,903
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,381
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,663
<SALES>                                          7,837
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,837
<CGS>                                            2,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,868
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (341)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (341)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.04)
        

</TABLE>
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 8

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide

that expenditures for a fiscal year shall exceed neither revenues for

such fiscal year nor 19 per centum of the Nation’s gross domestic

product for the last calendar year ending before the beginning of such

fiscal year.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. KYL introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States to provide that expenditures for a fiscal year

shall exceed neither revenues for such fiscal year nor

19 per centum of the Nation’s gross domestic product

for the last calendar year ending before the beginning

of such fiscal year.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when
2

SJ 8 IS

1 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

2 States within seven years after the date of its submission

3 for ratification:

4 ‘‘ARTICLE—

5 ‘‘SECTION 1. Except as provided in this article, out6 lays of the United States Government for any fiscal year

7 may not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.

8 ‘‘SECTION 2. Except as provided in this article, the

9 outlays of the United States Government for a fiscal year

10 may not exceed 19 per centum of the Nation’s gross do11 mestic product for the last calendar year ending before

12 the beginning of such fiscal year.

13 ‘‘SECTION 3. The Congress may, by law, provide for

14 suspension of the effect of sections 1 or 2 of this article

15 for any fiscal year for which three-fifths of the whole num16 ber of each House shall provide, by a roll call vote, for

17 a specific excess of outlays over receipts or over 19 per

18 centum of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the last

19 calendar year ending before the beginning of such fiscal

20 year.

21 ‘‘SECTION 4. Total receipts shall include all receipts

22 of the United States Government except those derived

23 from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of

24 the United States Government except those for the repay25 ment of debt principal.
3

SJ 8 IS

1 ‘‘SECTION 5. This article shall apply to the second

2 fiscal year beginning after its ratification and to subse3 quent fiscal years, but not to fiscal years beginning before

4 October 1, 2001.’’.

Æ
Before the Second Division,

July 28, 1953

No. 57446.

#### Freedman & Slater, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 172460-K, etc. (New York).

*231Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

It was stipulated that certain items of the merchandise consist of aluminum scrap of which metal is the component material of chief value and which is secondhand and fit only to be remanufactured. Upon the agreed statement of facts, it was held that the merchandise comes within the provisions of Public Law 869, *supra,*and is properly entitled to free entry.
September 16, 1960

No. 64532.

Suit 5004.

#### Manca, Inc. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2071 affirmed June 14, 1960. C.A.D. 738.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Medwave, Inc. (the “Company”) for thequarterly period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates listed below, herebycertifies that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date: May 4, 2006        By: /s/ Timothy J. O’Malley         Timothy J. O’Malley    President and Chief Executive Officer    (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
22
Before the Second Division,

March 8, 1961

No. 65256.

#### Andrew Fisher Cycle Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 329794-K, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues herein are similar in all material respects to those the *368subject of *United States*v. *Schmidt Pritchard & Co. et al.*(47 C.C.P.A. 152, C.A.D. 750), tbe claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
# Official Journal C 69/2013

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.069.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 69 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 568 March 2013 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2013.069.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 69

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 568 March 2013

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2013/C 069/01 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001 | 1 |
| 2013/C 069/02 | Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (1) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2013/C 069/01

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1857/2006 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production of agricultural products and amending Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

1

2013/C 069/02

Information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 declaring certain categories of aid compatible with the common market in application of Articles 87 and 88 of the Treaty (General block exemption Regulation) (1)

5

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2013/C 069/03 | State aid — Latvia — State aid SA.34191 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Alleged aid to airBaltic — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 40 |
| 2013/C 069/04 | State aid — Slovenia — State aid SA.32715 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Alleged aid to Adria Airways — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1) | 53 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2013/C 069/03

State aid — Latvia — State aid SA.34191 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Alleged aid to airBaltic — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

40

2013/C 069/04

State aid — Slovenia — State aid SA.32715 (2012/C) (ex 2012/NN) — Alleged aid to Adria Airways — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (1)

53

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMOTREX
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 1,2000
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>        1,000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JAN-01-2000
<CASH>                                                  8,502
<SECURITIES>                                           65,175
<RECEIVABLES>                                          15,462
<ALLOWANCES>                                            1,204
<INVENTORY>                                            12,198
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                      239,609
<PP&E>                                                 12,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                          4,084
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        285,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  46,123
<BONDS>                                               185,763
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                  233
<OTHER-SE>                                             (7,902)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          285,109
<SALES>                                                15,648
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       21,029
<CGS>                                                  11,366
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          15,784
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        1,898
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          102
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      2,114
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (2,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              185
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (2,848)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        (64,878)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (67,726)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (3.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           (3.03)


</TABLE>
----

Euro exchange rates (1)

 13 September 2004

(2004/C 229/01)

1 euro= 

----

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Helto Cruz, Also Known as Hector Cruz, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 102]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered September 13, 1991, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 25 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People *(People v Acosta,*80 NY2d 665, 672) and giving deference to the jury’s credibility determinations *(People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495), defendant’s guilt was proved beyond a reasonable doubt despite the inconsistent pre-trial statements by the victim’s mother regarding whether defendant shot her son or was the accomplice who held her at gunpoint. The witness had the opportunity to view defendant at close range for several minutes in the hallway while she begged for her son’s life. The witness identified defendant from a photo array, in a lineup and in court. Furthermore, her testimony was corroborated by two independent witnesses who, within days of the incident, overheard defendant boasting that he had killed a young man while his mother pleaded for her son’s life.

There was no "substantial likelihood that the [22-year-old] defendant would be singled out for identification” in the lineup *(People v Chipp,*75 NY2d 327, 336, *cert denied*498 US 833), even though he was seated between two fillers who were 35 and 41 years old, where defendant looked older than his age, all of the participants had similar skin tones, hair color and casual clothing and defendant chose his own seat number. Nothing in the record suggests either that the witness had focused on the suspect’s age prior to viewing the lineup, or that the police had deliberately "positioned the defendant in a suggestive manner” *(People v Rudolph,*161 AD2d 115, 116, *Iv denied*76 NY2d 795; *see, People v Gonzalez,*173 AD2d 48, 56, *Iv denied*79 NY2d 1001).

*254We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his *pro se*supplemental brief, and find they are without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.
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
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Xenith Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Thomas W. Osgood,
Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

|                  |  |  |  |                                                                                                                                             
|----------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                  |  | 
|February 25, 2011 |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas W. Osgood                                                                                                                        
|                  |  |  |  | Thomas W. Osgood Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer and Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)
No. 57002.

petition 6881-R (New York).

#### Alfred Kohlberg, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The president of the petitioner testified that the laces in question were offered on the basis of samples at a certain price for each sample. The petitioner, “knowing that' the market had been going down,” suggested to the foreign exporter prices which were 10 percent less than those originally offered. The prices at which petitioner offered to purchase the merchandise were accepted by the Chinese manufacturer and are the values actually paid by the importer. Prior to entry, petitioner sought information from the examiner concerning the proper dutiable value of the present merchandise and was advised that a deduction of 10 percent from prices set forth on a price list would not be allowed. After consultation with the examiner, petitioner decided to make a test case, and entry was made at the lower values which were advanced by the appraiser. An appeal for reappraisement was filed but same was not prosecuted because of the war condition that developed in China. On the record presented it was held that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of-the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.