alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

UNITED STATES, )

)

v. )

) Criminal Action No. 02-40 Erie 

)

JOHN COOLEY, )

)

Defendant. )

ORDER

AND NOW, this 12th day of October, 2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that sentencing

is rescheduled before the undersigned on Tuesday, October 18, 2005 at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom

C, U.S. Courthouse and Post Office, 17 South Park Row, Erie, Pennsylvania.

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge 

cc: All parties of record.

 U.S. Marshal Service

Probation

 

Case 1:02-cr-00040-DSC Document 118 Filed 10/12/05 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1 - Chief Executive Officer Certification (Section 906)

                        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 RPM Advantage, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2011, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report").

I, David R. Pressler, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

               (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
                     result of operations of the Company.

/s/ David R. Pressler
--------------------------
    David R. Pressler
    CEO President and Director


Date  April 25, 2011
      -----------------
----

|   | · | Key                Technology Holdings USA LLC, an Oregon limited liability                company |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | Suplusco                Holding B.V., a Netherlands                corporation |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | Key                Technology B.V., a Netherlands                corporation |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | Key                Technology AMVC LLC, an Oregon limited liability                company |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | Key                Technology Australia Pty Ltd. |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | Freshline                Machines Pty Ltd. |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | · | Productos                Key Mexicana S. de R.L. de C.V. |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------|

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SCHEDULE
10-K DATED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       2,768,730
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                       9,512,347
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    725,036
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      14,277,573
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        14,388,034
<LOANS>                                     62,119,886
<ALLOWANCE>                                    489,361
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              98,884,882
<DEPOSITS>                                  61,515,649
<SHORT-TERM>                                   531,757
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,082,265
<LONG-TERM>                                 22,743,737
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,907
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,679,945
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              98,884,882
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              5,544,593
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            1,040,216
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               662,703
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             7,247,512
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           2,678,858
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,847,625
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,399,887
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   60,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                343,335
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,142,318
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,142,318
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   822,478
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.57
<LOANS-NON>                                    653,428
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               139,014
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                203,092
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               487,184
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   67,801
<RECOVERIES>                                     9,978
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              489,361
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        489,361
        

</TABLE>
#### Roger Lea MacBRIDE et al., Appellants, v. Bruce SMATHERS et al., Appellees.

No. 51550.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 20, 1977.

William H. Adams, III, Jacksonville, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Joseph W. Lawrence, II, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Dawson A. McQuaig, Gen. Counsel and Robert G. Brown, Asst. Counsel, Jacksonville, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This is a direct appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Leon County, which construed the state statutory provisions regulating voting for write-in candidates for national presidential elections as requiring that the names of the presidential electors, rather than the names of the actual candidates, be written in on the ballot. The trial court further found that this statute, as so interpreted, does not constitute an unconstitutional discrimination against write-in candidates. Although we have jurisdiction under Article V, Section 3(b)(1), Florida Constitution, we have decided to dismiss this appeal. The Legislature recently revised the State Election Code, in 77-175, Laws of Florida, effective January 1,1978, repealing the various statutory provisions at issue here and eliminating write-in candidacies altogether. Therefore, the questions raised in this cause have become moot.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LUIS SANTOS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 06-01 Erie

v. )

)

DOCTOR MARK BAKER, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on January 3, 2006,

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 24], filed on

November 13, 2006, recommended that Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 13] be

granted, and that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 19 be denied. The

parties were allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service

was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. No objections were filed. 

After de novo review of the motions and documents in the case, together with the

Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 4th day of December, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Defendants’ motion to dismiss [Doc. No. 13]

is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment [Doc. No. 19] is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 24] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on November 13, 2006 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00001-SJM-SPB Document 25 Filed 12/04/06 Page 1 of 1
#### Robert A. PETERSON, Petitioner, v. The STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION, Respondent.

No. GG-394.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 5, 1977.

Howard S. Rhoads of Allen, Knudsen, Swartz, DeBoest, Rhoads & Edwards, Fort Myers, for petitioner.

Carole Haughey and William P. White, Jr., Tallahassee, for respondent.

ON MOTION TO DISMISS

MILLS, Acting Chief Judge.

The Department of Environmental Regulation (Department) entered an order adverse to Mr. Peterson. He filed a notice of appeal with the Environmental Regulation Commission (Commission) and filed a petition for review with this court. The Department has moved to dismiss the petition filed here because Mr. Peterson has not exhausted the administrative remedy of appeal to the Commission. We agree and grant the motion to dismiss.

Section 403.171, Florida Statutes (1975), enacted in 1967, provides that “Any party aggrieved by any action of the department may seek appropriate judicial review”.

Section 403.121(3), Florida Statutes (1975), enacted in 1967, provides that every order of the department is reviewable only in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

In 1975, by Section 20.261(3), Florida Statutes (1975), the legislature created the Commission and by Section 403.804(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provided that “The commission shall also act as an adjudicatory body for final actions taken by the department, except for those appeals and decisions authorized in ss. 20.261(12) and 253.76”.

*545Subsequently, after public notice and hearing, the Department adopted rules governing appeals of its final orders to the Commission. Section 120.53(2)(b), Florida Statutes (1975). The rules were published by the Secretary of State and are set forth in Chapter 17-1, Part III of the Florida Administrative Code. Section 120.55(l)(b), Florida Statutes (1975).

The provisions of Sections 403.171 and 403.121(3), and 403.804(1) are inconsistent. If possible, we must construe the inconsistencies so as to reconcile them. *Wiggins v. State,*101 So.2d 833 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958). Otherwise, we must resolve the inconsistencies in favor of the last expression of the legislative will. *Cable-Vision, Inc. v. Freeman,*324 So.2d 149 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

The inconsistencies of Sections 403.-171 and 403.121(3), and 403.804(1) can be reconciled by construing them to provide for judicial review of final agency action after review of the action by the Commission. This construction also gives effect to the last expression of the legislature. We so construe them.

Having so construed Sections 403.171, 403.121(3) and 403.804(1), the review action by the Commission must be exhausted before judicial review can commence here. *Phillips v. Santa Fe Community College,*342 So.2d 108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

The Department’s motion to dismiss is granted.

SMITH and ERVIN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 193 (Monday, October 6, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 52034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26348]



[[Page 52034]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Parts 410 and 412

[BPD-878-CN]
RIN 0938-AH55


Medicare Program; Changes to the Hospital Inpatient Prospective 
Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 1998 Rates; Corrections

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Final rule with comment period; correction notice.

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

SUMMARY: In the August 29, 1997, issue of the Federal Register (62 FR 
45966), we published a final rule with comment period revising the 
Medicare hospital inpatient prospective payment systems for operating 
costs and capital-related costs to implement necessary changes 
resulting from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-33 and 
changes arising from our continuing experience with the system. This 
document corrects technical errors made in that document.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Edwards, (410) 786-4531.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The August 29, 1997, final rule with comment 
period contained technical errors relating to codified regulations 
text. Therefore, we are making the following corrections:
    1. On page 46030, first column, in the amendatory language of item 
number 17, first line, the phrase ``In Sec. 412.108 paragraph (a)(1)'' 
is corrected to read ``In Sec. 412.108 the introductory text of 
paragraph (a)(1)''.
    2. On page 46037, second column, 26th line, the entry 
``Sec. 410.32(b)(1)'' is corrected to read ``Sec. 410.32(e)(1)''.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.778, Medical 
Assistance Program; No. 93.773 Medicare--Hospital Insurance; and No. 
93.774, Medicare--Supplementary Medical Insurance)

    Dated: September 30, 1997.
Neil J. Stillman,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information Resource Management.
[FR Doc. 97-26348 Filed 10-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-01-M
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 333-97579, 333-89030, 333-122986, 333-121165, and333-121160 on Form S-8 of our reports dated September 9, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of SRA International, Inc. and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of SRA International Inc. for the year ended June 30, 2005. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

McLean, Virginia 

September 12, 2005
**Video: HDL-VLT_8-1-Ex-Situ Scour Testing Device.mp4**

**YouTube Information:**

Title: Virtual Hydraulics Lab Tour – Ex-Situ Scour Testing Device (ESTD)

Description: An introduction to the Ex-Situ Scour Testing Device (ESTD) which is used to measure the erodibility of soil specimens under well-controlled flow conditions.

Video: mp4

Captions: attached

Thumbnail file: attached

Public Listing Type: Unlisted (we only want people to discover this video through our website and the virtual tour.)

**Permissions, copyright, licensing:**

Video: The entire video is FHWA-owned.

Music: Sunrise by James Michalski. Licensed from Artlist. See attached PDF: Sunrise_License_719099 - 2020-2021.pdf

**Script:**

The Ex-Situ Scour Testing Device measures the erodibility of cylindrical soil specimens under well-controlled flow conditions. The soil is automatically pushed up by a hydraulic piston as the erosion progresses. The extrusion is controlled by quasi-instantaneous detection of the soil surface change using an underwater laser scanner mounted to an industrial robot. The ESTD will be part of a fully automated soil erosion resistance testing laboratory which utilizes robots to conduct the erosion testing.

**508 Caption Description:**

The video begins with the mobile robot arm lifting a Shelby tube sample from the mobile platform and reaching over and placing it in the sample mount of the ESTD under the flow channel. The camera switches to a shot of the ESTD robot arm as it holds a laser scanner in the water of the flow channel. The camera angle changes to better show the floor of the flow channel, where the soil sample is visible along with the soil mounted to the shear sensor. The laser light from the scanner slowly pans across the exposed soil from the sample. A computer image appears in the lower right corner which shows the results from the scan which appears as a disc. The camera then returns to the mobile robot arm pulling back after mounting the sample in the piston as it resets back to its original position.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000

<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                             12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                    992
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,701
<ALLOWANCES>                              290
<INVENTORY>                               2,984
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          6,729
<PP&E>                                    27,498
<DEPRECIATION>                            12,602
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            717
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     22,342
<BONDS>                                   16,452
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                                41
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              4,055
<SALES>                                   22,342
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          87,273
<CGS>                                     87,273
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             75,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          15,234
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          8,265
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           1,708
<INCOME-TAX>                              (13,353)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (47)
<DISCONTINUED>                            (13,306)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           3,973
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              (9,333)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (2.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (2.43)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1

                                   EXHIBIT 11
                               AGEMARK CORPORATION

             STATEMENT CONCERNING COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                      NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30,
                                                                      -------------------------
                                                                        2001             2000
                                                                      ---------       ---------
<S>                                                                   <C>             <C>
Weighted average common shares actually outstanding                   1,000,000       1,000,000

Net shares assumed issued prior to the period attributable to
  stock options issued prior to the period                              191,584         187,987

Net shares attributable to options ceded during the period              -10,662          -2,474

Net shares assumed issued at June 30, 2000                                                4,599

Weighted average common shares assumed outstanding for period         1,180,922       1,190,112
</TABLE>



                                       14
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RICHARD GRANDE, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 06-190 Erie

v. )

)

GEORGE W. PATRICK, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis was received by the Clerk of

Court on August 21, 2006, and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan

Paradise Baxter for report and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act,

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates.

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2], filed on

August 23, 2006, recommended that Petitioner’s motion be denied. The parties were

allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on

Petitioner by certified mail and on Respondents. No objections were filed. After de

novo review of the motion and documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 13th day of September, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis is DENIED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 2] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on August 23, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00190-SJM-SPB Document 4 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 1
PROOF OF PUBLICATION (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SOLANO, s.s. Iama citizen ofthe United States and a resident ofthe county of Solano. lam over the age of18 years, and nota party to.or interested inthe aboveentitled matter. Iam the principal clerk ofthe printer of THE VACAVILLE REPORTER, a newspaper of general circulatIon, printed in the city of Vacaville and published daily inthe cities of Vacaville and Dixon and ti t the_county of

Solano. The Reporter has been adjudged a newspaper of ilties of Vacaville and Dixon, pursuant to Decree No. 25888 on June 30, 1952, 29 on March 20, 1996. The notice of which the attached isa printed copy (seti non pareil), has been published in each regular fld entire issue of THE V. I.And notin any supplement thereof, on the following dates, towit: h (This space Is DECEMBER 21, 2005 I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing istrue and correct. Dated at Vacaville, California this 21th

day DECEMBER2006(Signature) Cynthia Reed for the County Clerk’s Filing Stamp) PUBLIC NOTICE Proof of Publication of
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LAVELLE HARKNESS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

) Civil Action No. 09-29 Erie

v. )

)

RAYMOND SOBINA, )

)

Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This civil rights action was received by the Clerk of Court on February 11, 2009

and was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report

and recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),

and Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 47], filed on May

17, 2010, recommended that the Plaintiff’s case be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

The parties were allowed fourteen (14) days from the date of service to file objections

and service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail. No objections were filed. After de

novo review of the documents in the case, together with the Report and

Recommendation, the following order is entered:

AND NOW, this 10 day of June, 2010; th

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s case is DISMISSED for failure to

prosecute. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 47] of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed

on May 17, 2010 is adopted as the opinion of the Court.

 s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:09-cv-00029-SJM-SPB Document 48 Filed 06/10/10 Page 1 of 1