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

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1000
       
<S>                                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                     SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                                    42
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           8906
<ALLOWANCES>                                             531
<INVENTORY>                                            12432
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       21058
<PP&E>                                                 52425
<DEPRECIATION>                                         11641
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                         64853
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  19988
<BONDS>                                                    0
<COMMON>                                                  76
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                           (11396)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                           64853
<SALES>                                                27009
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       27009
<CGS>                                                  23567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                          25278
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         104
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          18
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      1867
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        (240)
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    (240)
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                           (240)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          (.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.16)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32  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 Western Massachusetts Electric Company (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), we, Leon J. Olivier, Chief Executive Officer of the registrant, and David R. McHale, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 registrant.    /s/
Leon J. OlivierLeon J. OlivierChief Executive Officer    /s/
David R. McHaleDavid R. McHaleExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer    Date:  May 8, 2009    A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10870

 

CURTIS MOORE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANIE COCKRELL, DIRECTOR,

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:99-CV-960) 

 

October 10, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Curtis Moore seeks a certificate of appealability from the

denial by the district court of federal habeas relief from his

state court conviction for capital murder and his sentence to

death. Judge McBryde denied Moore relief in a detailed opinion and

order filed July 13, 2000, and his request for certificate of

appealability on August 14, 2000. 
2

We deny the request for a certificate of appealability and

affirm the judgment below for essentially the same reasons stated

in Judge McBryde’s carefully written order denying relief.
No. 00-7544.

#### Kinder *v.*Purdy, Warden.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### NEMI STEEL PLACERS, INC., a/k/a Neml Steel Placers Incorporated, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY AND GUARANTY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 70-610.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 23, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### John E. HEATHCOCK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-501.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
12/01/2008

CFIUS Reform: Guidance on National Security Considerations

The U.S. Treasury Department, as chair of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States(CFIUS), and as required by the Foreign Investment & National Security Act of 2007, has issuedguidance on the types of transactions that CFIUS has reviewed and that have presented national securityconsiderations. The guidance also provides insight into how CFIUS identifies the national securityeffects of covered transactions.

Explains the relevance of national security considerations in the context of CFIUS reviews:

 CFIUS’s purpose: Identify and address national security risk posed by covered transactions

 National security risk: Risk is a function of the interaction between threat and vulnerability,in light of the potential consequences of that interaction for U.S. national security

 National security considerations: Considerations are facts and circumstances, with respect toa covered transaction, that have potential national security implications.

 Relevance of national security considerations: CFIUS analyzes all national securityconsiderations to assess whether a covered transaction poses national security risk.Transactions that present such considerations do not necessarily pose national security risk

Illustrates the types of transactions that have presented national security considerations:

 Illustrative, not comprehensive: Emphasizes that CFIUS considers all relevant facts andcircumstances in each case, regardless of industry. Within the following two majorcategories, the guidance provides illustrations, not a comprehensive description:

– Nature of the U.S. business: For example, national security considerations have beenpresented because the U.S. business has government contracts, has operations relevant toU.S. national security, or deals in certain advanced technologies or goods and servicescontrolled for export

– Identity of the foreign person: For example, national security considerations have beenpresented because of the track record of the foreign person acquiring control of the U.S.business, or the non-proliferation record of the person’s country of origin

 Foreign government control: Constitutes a national security consideration, but the guidanceaddresses circumstances that may lessen its significance in a transaction

 Corporate reorganizations: Raise national security considerations only in exceptional cases

Clarifies the purpose of the guidance:

 CFIUS administers a voluntary notice system. Covered transactions reviewed by CFIUSreceive a safe harbor from subsequent review. CFIUS may unilaterally review any coveredtransaction that does not have safe harbor, but it focuses solely on national security concerns

 The guidance does not set rules, nor discourage or encourage certain types of investment

For a link to the guidance, as well as additional information on CFIUS, please consulthttp://www.treas.gov/offices/international-affairs/cfius/.
November 25, 2014

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GEORGE WOOD, Appellant

NO. 14-13-00755-CV V.

MARTI KENNEDY AND DOYLE MURPHREE, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND

AS TEMPORARY CO-ADMINISTRATORS OF THE ESTATE OF DOYLE 

MURPHREE, SR., DECEASED, APPELLEES

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellees, Marti 

Kennedy and Doyle Murphree, Jr., Individually and as Temporary CoAdministrators of the Estate of Doyle Murphree, Sr., Deceased, signed August 6, 

2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and 

find error as to the amount of damages awarded by the probate court for unpaid 

rent, and we therefore suggest a remittitur in the amount of $3,750 by Marti 

Kennedy and Doyle Murphree, Jr. If within fifteen days of the date of this 

judgment, Marti Kennedy and Doyle Murphree, Jr., file with this Court a remittitur 

in the amount of $3,750, the third and fourth paragraphs of the judgment of the 

court below will be REFORMED to state that Marti Kennedy and Doyle 

Murphree, Jr., Temporary Co-Administrators of the Estate of Doyle Murphree, Sr., 

Deceased, recover from George Wood judgment for — 1. $2,500 as the amount 

due for unpaid rent and AFFIRMED in part as reformed; the portion of the 

judgment awarding $9,189.20 in attorney’s fees and costs advanced (together with 

interest thereon) will be REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further

proceedings in accordance with this Court’s opinion. If a remittitur is not filed, we 
order the portions of the judgment awarding damages for unpaid rent (together 

with costs and interest thereon) and awarding attorney’s fees and costs advanced 

(together with interest thereon) REVERSED and REMAND the cause for further 

proceedings in accordance with this Court’s opinion.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellees, Marti Kennedy and Doyle Murphree, Jr., Individually and as Temporary 

Co-Administrators of the Estate of Doyle Murphree, Sr., Deceased.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 31909]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13104]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7899]

The Designation of Abdallah Azzam Brigades, Also Known as 
Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Also Known as Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions of 
the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, Also Known as Yusuf al-'Uyayri Battalions 
of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, as a Specially Designated Global 
Terrorist Pursuant to Section 1(b) of Executive Order 13224, as Amended

    Acting under the authority of and in accordance with section 1(b) 
of Executive Order 13224 of September 23, 2001, as amended by Executive 
Order 13268 of July 2, 2002, and Executive Order 13284 of January 23, 
2003, I hereby determine that the organization known as Abdallah Azzam 
Brigades, and also known as Abdullah Azzam Brigades, also known as 
Ziyad al-Jarrah Battalions of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, also known 
as Yusuf al-'Uyayri Battalions of the Abdullah Azzam Brigades, 
committed, or poses a significant risk of committing, acts of terrorism 
that threaten the security of U.S. nationals or the national security, 
foreign policy, or economy of the United States.
    Consistent with the determination in section 10 of Executive Order 
13224 that ``prior notice to persons determined to be subject to the 
Order who might have a constitutional presence in the United States 
would render ineffectual the blocking and other measures authorized in 
the Order because of the ability to transfer funds instantaneously,'' I 
determine that no prior notice needs to be provided to any person 
subject to this determination who might have a constitutional presence 
in the United States, because to do so would render ineffectual the 
measures authorized in the Order.
    This notice shall be published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: May 3, 2012.
Thomas R. Nides,
Deputy Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-13104 Filed 5-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-10-P
```
#### Willard L. JENNINGS, Petitioner, v. William HEIDTMAN, Sheriff of Palm Beach County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 69-375.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District

June 5, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1969.

Habeas corpus denied.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and coll ateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 3 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. STEVEN R. STONE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-2144 (District of New Mexico) (D.C. No. CR-04-469-RB)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
BeforeEBEL , MURPHY , and McCONNELL , Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and the appellate record , this court has determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. **See** Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). This case is therefore ordered submitted without or al argument.-2-

Steven R. Stone was found guilty by a magistrate ju dge of camping longer than permitted in a National Forest in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(a). The district court affirmed Stone’s conviction and he n ow appeals **pro se** . On appeal Stone argues that the federal courts lack subject m atter jurisdiction over this matter. Federal courts have jurisdiction over all cases ari sing under the Constitution and laws of the United States. U.S. C onst. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Federal district courts have original jurisdiction “of all offenses against the laws of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Congress has authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to issue rules and regulations relat ed to the occupancy and use of National Forests and any person charged with violat ing such regulations may be tried by a magistrate judge. 16 U.S.C. § 551; 18 U .S.C. § 3401. Stone’s jurisdictional challenge is without merit b ecause he was charged with violating 36 C.F.R. § 261.58(a), a regulation promulgated pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 551, and his conviction is therefore affirmed
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 240 (Monday, December 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32693]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 939]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status: The B&F System, Inc. 
(Consumer Products/Knife Assembly), Dallas, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, by an Act of Congress approved June 18, 1934, an Act ``To 
provide for the establishment * * * of foreign-trade zones in ports of 
entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, 
and for other purposes,'' as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u) (the Act), the 
Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) is authorized to grant to 
qualified corporations the privilege of establishing foreign-trade 
zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved;
    Whereas, an application from the Dallas/Fort Worth Maquila Trade 
Development Corporation, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 168, for 
authority to establish special-purpose subzone status at the 
warehousing/distribution and processing facility of The B&F System, 
Inc., in Dallas, Texas, was filed by the Board on November 6, 1996, and 
notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal Register (FTZ 
Docket 81-96, 61 FR 58860, 11-19-96); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby authorizes the establishment of a 
subzone (Subzone 168A) at the The B&F System, Inc., facility in Dallas, 
Texas, at the location described in the application, subject to the FTZ 
Act and the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28, and subject to 
the condition that foreign origin merchandise related to the assembly 
activity shall be admitted to the subzone in privileged foreign status.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 8th day of December 1997.
Richard W. Moreland,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32693 Filed 12-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm on Supplemental Information
 
 
 
 To the Board of Directors and Stockholders
 OFS Capital Corporation
 Chicago, Illinois
 
 We have audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated financial statements of OFS Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2018, and for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2018, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K, and have expressed an unqualified opinion therein dated March 15, 2019. We have also previously audited the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014 (not presented herein), and we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements.
 
 The senior securities table included in Part II, Item 5 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company under the caption “Senior Securities” (the “Senior Securities Table”) has been subjected to audit procedures performed in conjunction with the audit of the Company’s consolidated financial statements for the aforementioned years. The Senior Securities Table is the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our audit procedures included determining whether the Senior Securities Table reconciles to the consolidated financial statements or the underlying accounting and other records, as applicable, and performing procedures to test the completeness and accuracy of the information presented in the Senior Securities Table. In forming our opinion on the Senior Securities Table, we evaluated whether the Senior Securities Table, including its form and content, is presented in conformity with Item 4.3 and the Instructions to Item 4.3 of Form N-2. In our opinion, the Senior Securities Table for each of the five years in the period ended December 31, 2018 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated financial statements as a whole.
 
 /s/ BDO USA, LLP
 
 Chicago, Illinois
 
 March 15, 2019, except for the additions related to Total Senior Securities and related information reflected in the Senior Securities Table, as to which the date is June 21, 2019.
Transaction Summary

The U.S. Department of the Treasury agreed to make a loan totaling $1.8 million to Southern 

Airways Express, LLC (the Company), a wholly owned subsidiary of Southern Airways Corp.

The Company is a passenger air carrier with approximately 458 U.S. employees in March 2020.

Treasury made the loan pursuant to section 4003(b)(1) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 

Economic Security (CARES) Act. The loan is secured by aircraft, flight simulator, engines, and 

spare parts. The loan has an interest rate equal to LIBOR plus 3.5% and matures on October 28, 

2025. Treasury funded the full loan amount at close. The loan proceeds will be used to provide 

liquidity to continue the Company’s operations. The transaction agreement includes covenants by 

the Company to comply with certain restrictions on employee compensation, stock repurchases, 

dividends, and reductions in employment levels, as required by the CARES Act. The loan 

constitutes senior indebtedness of the Company, and Treasury will also receive 3% payment-inkind annual interest on the loan in accordance with section 4003(d) of the CARES Act.
#### D. H. OVERMYER CO., Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. OUTBOARD MARINE CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-636.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 24, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Republic of Cote D’Ivoire – Rialto Energy Limited Equity Investment

U.S. Position

March 22, 2012

The United States welcomes the discussion of the proposed investment in Rialto Energy Limited. If this 

project is successful, it could lead to the development of an important energy resource for Cote d’Ivoire, 

just as it is emerging from a decade of instability. 

The United States strongly supports Cote d’Ivoire’s efforts to develop its energy resources in a 

transparent, accountable and sustainable manner. Therefore, the United States strongly supports

World Bank Group efforts to help the Government of Cote d’Ivoire (GoCdI) achieve this goal and 

welcomes IFC engagement in the sector as part of the World Bank Group’s work to help Cote d’Ivoire 

build a reliable energy supply to fuel its economic growth. 

Given the riskiness of this proposed operation, IFC has correctly rated this a Category A for 

environmental and social risk. However, the United States is concerned that IFC neither required, nor 

provided to the Board or the public, a client-sponsored EIA or any type of comprehensive environmental 

documentation. This absence is puzzling given that the company produced two EIAs to meet Cote 

d’Ivoire’s own requirements. These omissions are serious and are clearly inconsistent with the letter 

and intent of IFC’s policies. 

The United States appreciates that IFC has undertaken due diligence and summarized the findings in a 5 

page Environmental and Social Review Summary (ESRS). The United States recognizes that this is an 

exploratory project and notes IFC’s assurances that the risks may not be as great as they are for 

operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Nevertheless, a five page summary is insufficient for the Board and 

public to be assured that the potential impacts of a Category A project have been adequately identified 

and mitigated. Therefore, the United States would like to be on record as OPPOSING this operation on 

environmental grounds. 

That said, the United States encourages IFC to continue to engage in the sector, especially in African 

countries that are committed to accountability and transparency in resource management. However, 

this must be done with an appreciation of the critical need to provide adequate information to the 

Board and public about the risks in the operations it finances. 

The United States applauds the GoCdI’s commitment to the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 

(EITI) and welcomes recent governance improvements as a critical step in the right direction toward EITI 

compliance. The United States encourages the government to go beyond these EITI commitments so 

that it can play a leadership role in standards for resource extraction in West Africa.