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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          13,437
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          13,172
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,109,869
<ALLOWANCE>                                      6,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,283,746
<DEPOSITS>                                     656,400
<SHORT-TERM>                                   460,219
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             20,843
<LONG-TERM>                                     86,882
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      60,496
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,283,746
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 72,355
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,395
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                73,750
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              21,589
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              44,287
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           29,463
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,180
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 69,586
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,057
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      10,779
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,779
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.60
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.25
<LOANS-NON>                                     25,641
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,710
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      607
<RECOVERIES>                                        71
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                6,354
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             6,354
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50482 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JULIAN SUMMERS-MARTINEZ, also known as Julian Ponciano-Acosta Jr., also known as Julian Alvarado-Summers, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-00-CR-1819-1

-------------------- December 12, 2001 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Court-appointed counsel for Julian Summers-Martinez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Summers-Martinez has received a copy of counsel’s motion to withdraw and brief, and he has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leaveNo. 01-50482 -2- to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,903
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   51,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,592
<INVENTORY>                                     23,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,826
<PP&E>                                         424,165
<DEPRECIATION>                                 103,096
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 677,555
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           62,121
<BONDS>                                        583,260
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                         942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   677,555
<SALES>                                        284,312
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               284,312
<CGS>                                          274,181
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  274,181
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                47,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              50,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (72,719)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (24,779)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (47,940)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (47,940)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (47,940)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (47,940)


</TABLE>
## St at e of Ne w York Supre me Court , Appe llat e D i vi s i on T h i rd J udi cial D e

part me n t Decided and Entered: November 10, 2016 521995

________________________________ In the Matter of AIKIO GARNES, Petitioner, v MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

________________________________ Calendar Date: September 20, 2016 Before: McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, JJ.

__________ Aikio Garnes, Attica, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J. Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent finding petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules. Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a prison disciplinary determination. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been refunded to petitioner's inmate account. Although not mentioned by the Attorney General, the loss of good time incurred by petitioner as a result of the disciplinary determination should also be restored (see Matter of Zoccoli v Annucci, 140 AD3d 1512, 1513 [2016]). Otherwise, as petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the-2- 521995

proceeding must be dismissed as moot (see Matter of Clark v New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision, 138 AD3d 1331, 1332 [2016]; Matter of Corrieri v Annucci, 137 AD3d 1407, 1408 [2016]). McCarthy, J.P., Garry, Lynch, Rose and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

ADJUDGED that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
April 24, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

MORRIS E. ROBINSON, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00723-CV V.

TEXAS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES CORPORATION AND TOM BLAND, 

Appellees

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee Texas 

Construction Services Corporation signed June 1, 2012, was heard on the transcript 

of the record. We have inspected the record and find error in the judgment. We 

therefore MODIFY the judgment of the court below to condition the award of 

appellate attorney’s fees on the success on appeal of appellee Texas Construction 

Services Corporation. As modified, the judgment of the court below is ordered

AFFIRMED. We order appellant Morris E. Robinson to pay all costs incurred in 

this appeal. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
#### The KEYES COMPANY, a Florida Corporation, Appellant, v. ARVIDA CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, Milton Schlimsky, Barry Florescue and Fort Lauderdale Enterprises, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

Nos. 77-713, 77-747.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 6, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1978.

*428Shevin, Shapiro & Shevin and David Freedman, Miami, for appellant.

Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Quentel, Wright & Wolff and Woodrow M. Melvin, Jr., Miami, Ruden, Barnett, McClo-sky & Schuster and Terrence J. Russell, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Following a sale of real estate by the appellee, Arvida Corporation, to the appel-lee, Fort Lauderdale Enterprises, Inc., the appellant, The Keyes Company, real estate broker, filed action against the appellee seeking judgment for sales commission and judgment against defendants for alleged conspiracy to interfere with Keyes’ listing contract and to deprive Keyes of its commission. Compensatory and punitive damages were sought.

The case was tried before a jury. Motions of defendants for directed verdicts were not granted when made and the case was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff Keyes for a 5% commission with interest. Thereafter, the court granted renewed motions of defendants for directed verdict, and entered judgment for defendants, a separate judgment being entered for the defendant Arvi-da. The plaintiff appealed therefrom.

The determinative question is whether the trial court erred in concluding, as it was essential to do in directing verdicts for the defendants, that there was an absence of evidence to prompt or support a jury verdict for the plaintiff, viewing the evidence in a light favorable to the plaintiff and upon resolving in favor of the plaintiff any conflicts in the evidence and inferences reasonable thereby drawn from the evidence.

On consideration of the record, briefs and argument, we hold the ruling of the trial court was not error. From the record it appears the trial court so viewed the case when it was submitted to the jury. The fact that the case was given to the jury is not basis to conclude it was not properly subject to directed verdict for defendants, when in reality it was. When a trial court so views the record it is within his province, under the rules of practice, to submit the case to the jury for a verdict, as a means of saving time and effort which would be required for a re-trial of such a case, in event of reversal of a judgment entered on directed verdict.

No reversible error having been shown, the judgments are affirmed.
September 15, 2015

Mr. Michael Osburn

Chief Operating Officer

Nephos Services LLC

Dear Mr. Osburn:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 45.29, 61.113, 91.9, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, 91.203(a) and (b), 91.405, 91.407, 91.409,

and part 21, Subpart H, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why 

we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your June 8, 2015, exemption request on behalf of Nephos Services LLC filed in 

Docket No. FAA−2015−2549, but we are unable to process your request any further. Your 

petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider 

the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
#### John Ordway CLARKE, Alfred L. Deptula, Barbara L. Homberger, Judith Englehardt Pickeral, Jana Rankin, William T. Tyson, Larry Eugene Van Horn and Harry Thomas Waters, Jr., Petitioners, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40840.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 29, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 242 So.2d 791.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, J., dissents.
#### In re Investigation of Alleged Violation of the Code of Governmental Ethics by Roland F. COPPOLA, Member of the Louisiana State Police.

No. 8492.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

March 11, 1971.

In re Roland F. Coppola applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition.

Writs refused. Relator has an adequate remedy by appeal.
Exhibit 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1)
    
    The report on Form 10-K of the Company for the annual period ended
December 31, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m); and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
  /s/ Robert J. AtteaRobert J. AtteaChairman of the Board
Chief Executive Officer/s/ David L. RogersDavid L. RogersChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 ConMat Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
C. Morral, Jr., Chief Financial Officer 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:

   (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.


                                                      /s/ Thomas C. Morral, Jr.
                                                      -------------------------
                                                      Thomas C. Morral, Jr.
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
                                                      October 18, 2002










                                       18
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                             566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   59,261
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,200
<INVENTORY>                                     40,084
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               122,082
<PP&E>                                         720,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                 260,072
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 605,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           41,924
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    119,790
<COMMON>                                       247,007
<OTHER-SE>                                     (73,840)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   605,609
<SALES>                                        151,938
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               151,938
<CGS>                                          132,270
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,593
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,036
<INCOME-TAX>                                        77
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,959
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,959
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .03


</TABLE>
P. 1



# OAR Box 1852 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 36 ) ll-C-1 2 Docket Number: 

# A-86-0 3

Printed 11/19/2008 2:38:54

PM Sheet 36 of 101P. 2

Mr . Joh nD . Winter s Vic e President Caterpillar , Inc * 100 0 N.E . Adams Peoria , I I 6162 9
Dear Mr . Winters i Than kyo ufo r supplying additiona l informatio n o n th e effec t o f diese l fue l sulfu r o n particulat e emission s fro myou r engines . W e look forward t o meeting wit h yo u i n An n Arbo r i n th e nea r futur e t o iiscus s futur e Caterpilla r technology . W e appreciat e you r transmitta l o f the Chevro n an d Radia n papers . W e were awar e o f the mand , i n fact , ou r ow n stud yi s aime d a t resolving some significan t uncertaintie s whic h perceiv e t o b e presen t in eac h o f them . On e omissio n o f o f thes e estimate s o f th e cos t effectivenes s o f sulfu r contro l i s tha t theyd o no t tak e int o "credit " associate d wit h reducing o r eliminating the us e o f exhaus t aftertreatmen t controls . Thi a credi t i s estimate d a s th e differenc e i n complianc e cos t (with eithe r the 199 1 o r 199 4 standards ) betwee n curren t an d lo wsulfu r fuels . I n orde r t o estimat e thi s value , EPAmus t projec t the futur e complianc e strategie s engin

e manufacturer s ar e contemplating bot h wit h an d withou t lowsulfu r fuel . An y specifi c informatio n yo u coul d provid e i n thi s are a woul d be ver yhelpful . Sincerely , 

### BARCLA YFO

R J . Crai g Potte r Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an

d Radiatio n
Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 1 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 2 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 3 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 4 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 5 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 6 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 7 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 8 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 9 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 10 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 11 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 12 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 13 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 14 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 15 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 16 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 17 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 18 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 19 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 20 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 21 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 22 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 23 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 24 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 25 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 26 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 27 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 28 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 29 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 30 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 31 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 32 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 33 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 34 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 35 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 36 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 37 of 38

Case 1:01-cv-00382-MBC   Document 34   Filed 07/27/06   Page 38 of 38
EXHIBIT 10.16

FORM OF COMMITMENT LETTER



Mr. Tony
Gioia
President and CEO
Tully's Coffee Corporation
3100 Airport Way South
Seattle, WA 98134

Dear
Tony:

I
am aware that Tully's Coffee Corporation is presently seeking to raise capital (debt or equity) from one or more sources. Although I expect these efforts will be successful, I
recognize that there is no certainty of success.

This
letter will confirm my commitment and ability to provide financial support as may be required by the company, up to $xxx,xxx. At my election, this financial support may be made
through a direct investment in the company's stock, by direct loan to the company with a maturity no earlier than June 30, 2003, or by personal guarantee of a bank loan to the company with a
maturity no earlier than June 30, 2003.

This
commitment is only effective until the earlier of (a) June 30, 2003 or (b) the successful completion of the company's capital-raising efforts in an amount not
less than $3,000,000.



---

QuickLinks