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

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 1999 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                                        0001077552
<NAME>                                       GENTEK INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                       1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                 SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                            34,459
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    216,300
<ALLOWANCES>                                       4,301
<INVENTORY>                                      118,012
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 417,223
<PP&E>                                           499,013
<DEPRECIATION>                                   145,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,195,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            295,040
<BONDS>                                          712,204
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                             208
<OTHER-SE>                                        12,330
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,195,484
<SALES>                                          609,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 609,324
<CGS>                                            453,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    453,938
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     105
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                25,378
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   51,657
<INCOME-TAX>                                      23,890
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               27,767
<DISCONTINUED>                                     1,006
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    4,939
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      23,834
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       1.11



</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



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 on Form 10-QSB of Technest Holdings, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company do hereby certify, to their best knowledge and belief, 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.







/s/ Robert Tarini

/s/ Gino M. Pereira



Robert Tarini

Gino M. Pereira

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer

Date: February
21, 2006

Date: February
21, 2006
#### The CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation, Appellant, v. BONDED RENTAL AGENCY, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-879.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53611-53612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27248]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3923-000]


Infinite Energy, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

October 9, 1997.
    Infinite Energy, Inc. (Infinite) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Infinite will engage in wholesale electric power 
and energy transactions as a marketer. Infinite also requested waiver 
of various Commission regulations. In particular, Infinite requested 
that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all 
future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by 
Infinite.
    In October 2, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Rate Applications, Office of Electric Power Regulation, 
granted

[[Page 53612]]

requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Infinite should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Infinite is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance of assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Infinite's issuances of securities or assumptions 
of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is November 3, 1997. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27248 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Sidney ADLER, Appellant, v. Ettamae ADLER, Appellee.

Nos. 76-2186, 77-788 and 77-1572.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 19, 1978.

Buchbinder & Black and Melvin S. Black, Miami, for appellant.

Dubbin, Schiff, Berkman & Dubbin and Evan Langbein, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, BARKDULL and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellant, respondent below, brings these consolidated appeals from the following judgment and orders entered by the trial court: (1) final judgment of dissolution of marriage, dated August 20, 1976; (2) order on respondent’s petition for rehearing and petitioner’s [appellee] request for attorney’s fees, dated November 4, 1976; (3) order of contempt and order on other pending motions, dated March 14, 1977; (4) order of contempt, dated June 14, 1977; (5) order granting attorney’s fees, dated June 20, 1977; and (6) amended order on wife’s [ap-pellee] motion to set aside fraudulent conveyance, June 23, 1977.

We have carefully reviewed each of appellant’s contentions in regard to items (1), (2), and (3), listed above, and find them to be without merit. See, e. g., *Herzog v. Herzog,*346 So.2d 56 (Fla.1977); *Faircloth v. Faircloth,*339 So.2d 650 (Fla.1976); *Sisson v. Sisson,*336 So.2d 1129 (Fla.1976); *Shaw v. Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); *Bosem v. Bosem,*279 So.2d 863 (Fla.1973); *Firestone v. Firestone,*263 So.2d 223 (Fla.1972); *Bowen v. Bowen,*347 So.2d 675 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Goldin v. Goldin,*346 So.2d 107 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Hazelwood*v. *Hazelwood,*345 So.2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); *Hawkesworth v. Hawkesworth,*345 So.2d 359 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Long v. Long,*304 So.2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); *Kalmutz v. Kalmutz,*299 So.2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); *Gamse v. Gamse,*291 So.2d 620 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); and *Lee v. Lee,*262 So.2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).

However, in regard to item (4), listed above, the parties agree that the amount *469of the arrearages is $6,900 rather than $7,900. Further, in regard to items (4) and (5), listed above, our review of the record reflects that there was no testimony upon which the finding of contempt or the award of attorney’s fees could be predicated. Therefore, item (4) is reversed as to the finding of contempt and the amount of the arrearages set forth should be reduced to $6,900, and item (5) is reversed as to the award of attorney’s fees.

In regard to item (6), listed above, it is our opinion that the trial court properly gave appellee a lien against certain real property owned by appellant in order to secure the payment of alimony and child support as awarded by the court. Substantial arrearages existed at the time of the imposition of the lien under the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, as modified, and it was within the discretion of the trial court to secure payment in this manner. §§ 61.11 and 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1977).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
#### In re ESTATE of Grace Elizabeth SUPPLEE, Deceased. Dorothy H. BOYD, etc., Petitioner, v. A. T. COOPER, Jr., etc., et al., Respondents.

No. 41181.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 28, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 247 So.2d 488.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000904979
<NAME> SHILOH INDUSTRIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                         642,723
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               46,802,379
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 44,783,947
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            97,063,122
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             354,828,842
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       40,703,406
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       130,805
<OTHER-SE>                                 162,686,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               354,828,842
<SALES>                                    299,350,361
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           299,350,361
<CGS>                                      242,499,691
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              269,331,824
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (499,450)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,303,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             25,214,769
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,672,938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         15,541,831
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                15,541,831
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.19
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.19
        

</TABLE>
#### Aubrey L. ODOM, Appellant, v. INVESTORS INTERNATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 69-330.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Sept. 5, 1969.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Palm Beach County; James C. Downey, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Sarah S. HARRIS, Appellee.

No. 52496.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 4, 1978.

William E. Whitley, Asst. State’s Atty., Gainesville, for appellant.

William B. Salmon, Asst. Public Defender, Gainesville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Reversed. *State v. Harris et al.,*356 So.2d 315 (Fla.1978).

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and BOYD, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., concur.

ADKINS, J., dissents.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41604 

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RENE ROLANDO ESTRADA-RAMIREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:04-CR-556-ALL

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

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Rene Rolando Estrada-Ramirez (Estrada) appeals his 

guilty-plea conviction and sentence for illegal reentry after a

previous deportation. He argues that the “felony” and

“aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(1) and (2)

are unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 

U.S. 466 (2000). The Government seeks enforcement of the waiver

provision in Estrada’s plea agreement. We need not decide the

applicability of the waiver in this case because this issue is
No. 04-41604

-2-

foreclosed. See Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S.

224, 235 (1998). Although Estrada contends that AlmendarezTorres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme

Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi, we

have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that

Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. GarzaLopez, 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 126 S. Ct. 298

(2005). Estrada properly concedes that his argument is

foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent,

but he raises it here to preserve it for further review. 

AFFIRMED.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

07/10

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 10 Jul 06

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.56 N 76.20 W Meters AGL
### SERVED: DECEMBER 19, 2012

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF 

### KEYSTONE LABORATORIES FAA DOCKETNo. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS No. F AA-20 12-0203
ORDER OF DISMISSAL OnApril 9, 2012, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter referred to as "Complainant") filed a Complaint. OnMarch 23, 2(>12, Respondent Keystone Laboratories

. (hereinafter "Respondent") had requested ahearing. On December 18, 2012, Complainant, on

behalfofboth parties, moved to terminate the proceedings and dismiss the case, citing settlement. Complainant's motion is the functional equivalent of, and will be treated as, a withdrawal ofits Complaint. 14 C.P.R. 

### § 13.215 states: "Atany time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney may withdraw a complaint orparty may withdraw a request for a hearing without the consent ofthe administrative lawjudge. Ifan agency attorney withdraws the complaint or a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative lawjudge shall dismiss the proceedings underthis subpart withprejudice."2 

### WHEREFORE, the within filed Withdrawal ofComplainthaving been read and considered, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Complainant's Withdrawal ofComplaint be and is hereby granted; and 2. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

U.S. Administrative Law Judge Attachment

- Service List

### SERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & 

### ONE COPY Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Building-Suite2W1000 1



### Adam D. Otto,

### Respondent's Counsel Otto Law Office P.O. Box 1356 303 South Second Avenue West Newton, lA 50208 TEL: 641-792-7000 FAX: 641-792-7001 

### ONE COPY

Gayle E. Townsend, 

### Complainant's Counsel Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel Central Region, ACE7 Federal Aviation Administration Room 506, DOT Building 901 Locust Kansas City, MO 64106-2641 TEL: 816-329-3766 FAX: 816-329-3771 The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,

### Administrative Law

### Judge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAX: 202-366-7536 FDMSNo. FAA-2012-0203 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service wasby U.S. Mail. For service inperson orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591, Attention: HearingDocket Clerk, AGC-430.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EDWARD JOSEPH MCNATT, )

)

Petitioner, )

) Civil Action No. 05-124 Erie

v. )

)

JUDGE OLIVER LOBAUGH, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This habeas corpus action was received by the Clerk of Court on April 20, 2005, 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. 25], filed on

January 29, 2007, recommended that Respondents’ motion to dismiss for failure to

exhaust state remedies [Doc. No. 20] be granted. The parties were allowed ten (10) days

from the date of service to file objections. Service was made on Petitioner and on

Respondents. Petitioner filed Objections on February 9, 2007 [Doc. No. 26]. 

In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommended that

Petitioner’s habeas corpus petition be dismissed because he had failed to exhaust his

state court remedies. Petitioner, at the time that he filed this action, had a PCRA petition

pending before the Pennsylvania Superior Court which included claims also presented in

the instant habeas petition. In his Objections, Petitioner informed the Court that he had

voluntarily dismissed his PCRA petition and asserted that, consequently, he had exhausted

his state remedies. We nonetheless adopted the Report and Recommendation,

expressing doubt as to whether a Petitioner may properly exhaust his own claims by filing

a voluntary dismissal in state court. 

On March 27, 2007, Petitioner filed a Motion to Reconsider [Doc. No. 29], asserting

that, although our Order cited the exhaustion doctrine as the basis for dismissal, a

procedural default analysis would be more appropriate. Petitioner requests that this matter

Case 1:05-cv-00124-SJM-SPB Document 33 Filed 05/17/07 Page 1 of 2
2

be referred to Magistrate Judge Baxter so that he may be given an opportunity to argue

that procedural default must be excused to avoid a “fundamental miscarriage of justice.”

Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495 (1986).

After reviewing the motion, we agree that Petitioner did not receive an opportunity

to raise and argue that a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result if the procedural

default doctrine is utilized to bar his claims. 

AND NOW, this 17th day of May, 2007; 

IT IS HEREBYORDERED that the Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration [Doc. No.

29] is GRANTED and this case be re-opened. It is further ordered that this matter be

referred to Magistrate Judge Baxter for a Report and Recommendationaddressing whether

the doctrines of exhaustion and/or procedural default apply to Petitioner’s claims and, in

the case of the latter, whether dismissing those claims as procedurally defaulted would

amount to a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

s/ Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cm: All parties of record

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 1:05-cv-00124-SJM-SPB Document 33 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2
@ December 15, 2006 400 Seventh St., S.W.

US.Department Washington, D.C. 20590
of Transportation

Federal Highway In Reply Refer To:
Administration HSA-10/LS-63

Mr. Robert Sik

Vice President

Akron Foundry Company
2728 Wingate Avenue
P.O. Box 27028

Akron, OH 44319-0009

Dear Mr. Sik:

Thank you for your letter dated October 12 requesting the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) acceptance of a modification to your company’s F-1300 breakaway cast aluminum
transformer base for use on the National Highway System under the provisions of National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 350 “Recommended Procedures for the Safety
Performance Evaluation of Highway Features.”

You requested that we find the F-1300 base acceptable when used on a 10-/ inch diameter bolt
circle. With the exception of the internal ear length used to bolt the base in place, the typical base
assembly is identical to your previously accepted F-1300 transformer base. Attachment to the base
at the internal ears using standard round washers that lay flat or attachment using the previously
accepted modified stack pack washer arrangement (LS-58) will provide full support when bolted in
place.

We have reviewed the results of prior crash testing of the F-1300 base, which had been found
acceptable when used with standard round washers on a bolt circle of 12 inches, and concur that
this modification would have no significant impact on the breakaway performance of your
company’s transformer base. All appropriate conditions in the previous FHWA acceptance letters
dealing with Akron Foundry cast aluminum transformer bases continue to apply.

Sincerely yours,

R. Bek
irector, Office of Safety Design
Office of Safety
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.72000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

SO2 Emissions (lb/mmBtu)YearFigure 1.a. NPPD-Gerald Gentleman SO2 RateUnit #1 SO2_RATEUnit #2 SO2_RATE