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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         442,500
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  445,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    641,200
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,837,000
<PP&E>                                         138,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,843,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          653,200
<BONDS>                                      4,567,800
<COMMON>                                       266,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        1,053,000
<PREFERRED>                                  4,892,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,312,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,843,500
<SALES>                                        795,400
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               795,400
<CGS>                                          498,100
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  498,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               736,500
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             383,100
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,140,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,100
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,132,800
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,132,800
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the
undersigned officer of Lepora Holdings, Inc.
(the "Company"), hereby certify to my knowledge that:

The Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2015
of the Company fully complies, in all material respects,
with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the
Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.


                             /s/ John Anthony Leper
                                 Chief Executive OFficer
                                 Chief Financial Officer
Date: July 18, 2016
• &. 

FOUR COUNTY - INSPECTION SERVICES. LLC -

8/11/2015 

John Barbagallo 

Federal Aviation Adminstration 

800 Independence Ave. 

Washington,DC 20591 

Dear John, 

I am writing your office today to request permission to utilize a small un-manned drone 

in my business. I am a residential home inspector in Wisconsin and the drone will allow 

me to inspect roofs without the danger of falling off the roof or causing any damage to 

the roof. 

It will be used with the permission of the home owner and only take video and or still 

pictures of the roof, flashing and any areas of concern on the roof. 

I hope you will approve my request and limit it for roof inspection purposes only in and 

around the subject property. Limits on elevation above the highest point of the roof are 

also expected and accepted. Just let me know so I can comply with you ruling. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Owner 

Four County Home Inspection Service, LLC 

262-271-0136 

218 Joellen Drive, Waukesha WI 53188
August 22, 1972

No. 72-32

#### Michael L. Sims, LCPL, U. S. Marine Corps v United States.

On consideration of the Petition for Extraordinary Relief filed in the above-entitled case, it appearing that the United States Navy Court of Miliary Review has retained jurisdiction over the case after issuing its interlocutory order directing the preparation of a new post-trial review and action by the Convening Authority and thus is the more appropriate form to grant the relief which petitioner seeks, it is, by the Court, this 22d day of August 1972,

ORDERED:

That said Petition for Extraordinary Relief be, and the same hereby is, denied without prejudice to the petitioner’s application for the same to the United States Navy Court of Military Review.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 154 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 154

     Designating October 21, 2005, as ``National Mammography Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2005

    Mr. Biden (for himself, Mr. Allard, Mr. Allen, Mr. Bunning, Ms. 
  Cantwell, Mr. Cochran, Mr. Dorgan, Mrs. Hutchison, Mr. Isakson, Ms. 
 Landrieu, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Santorum, Mr. Wyden, Mrs. Clinton, Ms. 
  Mikulski, Mr. Bingaman, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Talent, Mrs. Lincoln, Mr. 
 Grassley, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Salazar, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. 
 Nelson of Nebraska, Mr. Carper, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Collins, Mr. Craig, 
    Mr. Specter, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. Vitter) submitted the following 
    resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

                             June 28, 2005,

             Committee discharged; considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Designating October 21, 2005, as ``National Mammography Day''.

Whereas according to the American Cancer Society, in 2005, 212,930 women will be 
        diagnosed with breast cancer and 40,410 women will die from this 
        disease;
Whereas it is estimated that about 2,000,000 women were diagnosed with breast 
        cancer in the 1990s, and that in nearly 500,000 of those cases, the 
        cancer resulted in death;
Whereas African-American women suffer a 30 percent greater mortality rate from 
        breast cancer than White women and more than a 100 percent greater 
        mortality rate from breast cancer than women from Hispanic, Asian, and 
        American Indian populations;
Whereas the risk of breast cancer increases with age, with a woman at age 70 
        having twice as much of a chance of developing the disease as a woman at 
        age 50;
Whereas at least 80 percent of the women who get breast cancer have no family 
        history of the disease;
Whereas mammograms, when operated professionally at a certified facility, can 
        provide safe screening and early detection of breast cancer in many 
        women;
Whereas mammography is an excellent method for early detection of localized 
        breast cancer, which has a 5-year survival rate of more than 97 percent;
Whereas the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society continue 
        to recommend periodic mammograms; and
Whereas the National Breast Cancer Coalition recommends that each woman and her 
        health care provider make an individual decision about mammography: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates October 21, 2005, as ``National Mammography 
        Day''; and
            (2) encourages the people of the United States to observe 
        the day with appropriate programs and activities.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM TOREADOR
ROYALTY CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM
10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         680,914
<SECURITIES>                                   252,006
<RECEIVABLES>                                  712,238
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,764,750
<PP&E>                                      22,489,662
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,221,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,308,819
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          221,436
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    160,000
<COMMON>                                       883,058
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,849,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,308,819
<SALES>                                      2,616,687
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,875,761
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,525,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             563,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                786,208
<INCOME-TAX>                                   267,311
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            518,897
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   248,897
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.05


</TABLE>
Case: 2:12-cv-00870-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 1 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00870-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 2 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00870-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 3 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00870-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 4 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00870-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 5 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00870-EAS-MRA Doc #: 26 Filed: 01/02/13 Page: 6 of 6  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-07T20:15:42-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
(logo) Rialto CAPITAL

 

**2016 Annual Statement ofServicer Compliance (Item 1123)**

 

 

Pooling and ServicingAgreement (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as ofAugust 1, 2015 by and among Credit Suisse First Boston Mortgage SecuritiesCorp. as Depositor, Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, NationalAssociation as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as SpecialServicer, Pentalpha Surveillance LLC as Operating Advisor, Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Certificate Administrator and Wells Fargo Bank,National Association as Trustee relating to the Credit Suisse First BostonMortgage Securities Corp., CSAIL 2015-C3 Commercial Mortgage Trust, CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-C3

**(CSAIL 2015-C3)**

 

 

The undersigned, a dulyauthorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the“Special Servicer”), except for the Charles River Plaza North WholeLoan, herein certifies to the following:

 

1. All servicing activitiesand performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and ServicingAgreement are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.

 

2. A review of the servicingactivities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of January 1,2016 to December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) in accordance withthe Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted under my supervision.

 

3. To the best of myknowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in allmaterial respects for the Reporting Period and if there has been a failure tofulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and thenature and status thereof has been specifically identified herein.

 

 

Certified by: /s/ Adam Singer

Adam Singer, Managing Director

Date: March 1, 2017
Before the Third Division,

September 12, 1941

No. 46305.

#### Protest 87089-G of Wah Young Co. (Seattle).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise is similar in all material characteristics to certain articles the subject of *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) the claim for free entry under paragraph 1567 was sustained.
Before the Third Division,

September 11, 1941

No. 46287.

#### Protest 59539-K of A. Pfingst (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation that the cement in question is the same in all material respects as that the-subject of *Premier Dental Products Co.*v. *United States*(28 C. C. P. A. 44, C. A. D. 123) the protest was sustained.
Case No. 14,596.

#### UNITED STATES v. BIRCH et al.

[3 Cranch, C. C 180.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Nov. Term, 1827.

Witness — Negro—Joint Indictment.

A colored man is not a competent witness in Alexandria against a colored man indicted jointly with white men for a riot.

James Birch, a white man, was indicted jointly with others for a riot. One of the defendants. William Bill, was a colored man.

Mr. Swann, for the United States,

offered Wilfred Mortimer, a colored man, born of a white woman, as a witness for the prosecution against the colored defendant, William BilL

Mr. Mason, for defendants,

objected.

By the 5th section of the Virginia act of 7th of December, 1792 (page 1ST), it is enacted that “no negro or mulatto shall be a witness, except in pleas of the commonwealth against negroes or mulattoes; or in civil pleas where negroes or mulattoes alone shall be parties.”

THE COURT

(THRUSTON, Circuit Judge, absent),

rejected the witness; because it was ¡ a joint indictment, and the defendants had pleaded jointly; and the testimony, if given against one, would operate against all.
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 Union Tank Car Company (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Mark J. Garrette, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In witness whereof, I have executed this certification as of the
13thday of November, 2003.



/s/    MARK J. GARRETTEMark J. GarrettePrincipal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,113,389
<SECURITIES>                                 4,311,137
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,006,386
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,967,059
<PP&E>                                     101,644,515
<DEPRECIATION>                              32,018,418
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              88,593,156
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,423,264
<BONDS>                                     53,718,224
<COMMON>                                       183,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  29,311,326
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                88,593,156
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,267,494
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               10,055,013
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,470
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,884,733
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                208,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                    82,875
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            125,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   125,136
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.69


</TABLE>
No. 46283.

#### Protests 13750-K, etc., of Ednal Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of colored sheet glass similar to that the subject of Abstract 45423. In accordance therewith it was held dutiable at *V/m*cents per pound under paragraph 219 and T. D. 45313, plus 5 percent ad valorem under paragraph 224 as being colored. This claim was therefore sustained.
Case: 2:12-cv-01195-EAS-EPD Doc #: 52 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T19:55:24-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 7143** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

– Appellee ,
v. DECARLOS ANTONIO WRIGHT, a/k/a Carlos Wright , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina , at Raleigh
. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. ( 5:12

- cr - 00170

- H

- 2; 5:13

- cv - 00342

- H )

Submitted : August 31, 2015 Decided: September 10, 2015

Before NIEM EYER, SHEDD, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. Decarlos Antonio Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Tobin Webb Lathan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Decarlos Antonio Wright seeks to appeal the district
court ’ s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and the order denying his motion for reconsideration . We dismiss the appeal. First, Wright did not timely appeal the district court’s order denying his § 2255 motion. When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the no tice of appeal must be filed no more than 60 days after the entry of the district court ’ s final judgment or order, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period u nder Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court ’ s order denying Wright’s § 2255 motion was entered on the docket on April 7, 2014
. Because Wright did not file his motion for reconsideration within 28 days of that order, his motion did not toll the 60

- day appeal period. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Therefore, because Wright failed to file a timely notice of appeal or obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, his notice of appeal, filed on July 28, 2014 , was untimely as to the3 order denying his § 2255 motion , and we dismiss the appeal of the § 2255 order for lack of jurisdiction. Wright’s appeal is timely as to the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration. However, on appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the a ppellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Wright’ s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s denial of reconsideration . Because Wright has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order , he fails to demonstrate that the district court’s denial of reconsideration is debatable. We therefore deny a certificate o f appealability and dismiss the appeal of the order denying reconsideration
. Accordingly , we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal of both orders . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED