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



<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000315256
<NAME>PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
<MULTIPLIER>1,000

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           JUN-30-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                              PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                1,642,749
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 30,484
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                     389,550
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   580,179
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,642,962
<COMMON>                                         1
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                  424,492
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        284,463
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>             710,031
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       25,000
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                       540,985
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                               0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                        0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                   0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                   25,000
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                678,836
<LEASES-CURRENT>                           111,068
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>             552,042
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>            2,642,962
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                  573,623
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                        26,347
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 486,610
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                 508,755
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                     64,868
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                           6,910
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>              67,576
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    21,600
<NET-INCOME>                                45,976
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  3,975
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>               42,001
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                      48,046
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.00



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Phoenix Footwear
Group, Inc., (the "Company"), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly
Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 1, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "10-Q Report"), that:

(1) the 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as of November 15,
2005.

                                                         /s/ Richard E. White
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Richard E. White
                                                         Chief Executive Officer

                                                         /s/ Kenneth Wolf
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Kenneth Wolf
                                                         Chief Financial Officer

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

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1502000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8673000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    197000
<INVENTORY>                                    2435000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              16377000
<PP&E>                                        22881000
<DEPRECIATION>                                16428000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                26869000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         13310000
<BONDS>                                        8437000
<COMMON>                                        246000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     5945000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  26869000
<SALES>                                       24721000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              24721000
<CGS>                                         20786000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 24024000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              473000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 235000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    325000 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (90000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0      
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (90000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 12   AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    Three Months EndedSix Months EndedJune 30,June 30,(dollars in thousands)2008200720082007Earnings:
(Loss) income before (credit) provision for income
taxes$ (61,706)$  64,182$(109,077)$  17,314Interest expense290,860296,527597,095594,193Implicit interest in rents8,0375,31213,59510,679Total earnings$237,191$366,021$ 501,613$622,186Fixed charges:
Interest expense$290,860$296,527$ 597,095$594,193Implicit interest in rents8,0375,31213,59510,679Total fixed charges$298,897$301,839$ 610,690$604,872Ratio of earnings to fixed charges0.791.210.821.03    45
#### Theodore A. GOLDSTEIN, as Executor of the Estate of Reina Henri Dunn, Deceased, Appellant, v. Jose FEINBERG, Appellee.

No. 73-1387.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 28, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
**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**

 

The undersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 25, 2010 to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| *February 3, 2011* |   | By:                       | */s/James F. Conway III* |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------|--------------------------|
| Date                    |   | James   F. Conway III     |
|                    |   | Chairman,   President and |
|                    |   | Chief Executive Officer   |

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed” for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing, under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

 

----
#### CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Marjorie Rose GANGER, Appellee.

No. 76-319.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 4, 1977.

Marjorie D. Gadarian of Jones, Paine & Foster, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Stuart E. Kocha and Larry Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAUKSCH, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., Jr., Associate Judge, concur.

ALDERMAN, J., dissents with opinion.

ALDERMAN, Judge,

dissenting.

I believe the trial court erred in granting a new trial on the issue of damages only. To grant a new trial on the issue of damages alone, it must appear that on the evidence adduced at the trial the liability of the defendant was unequivocally established without substantial dispute and the inadequacy of the verdict was induced by a misconception of the law or the failure of the jury to consider all of the elements of damage submitted, and not as a result of a compromise by the jury on the issue of liability. *1661 Corp. v. Snyder,*267 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). In the present case it can not be said that the defendant’s liability in the trial below was unequivocally established without substantial dispute. The evidence was in conflict and a jury question was presented. Whether the jury award was indicative of the jury’s determination of liability on the part of the defendant or was the result of a compromise can only be a matter of speculation. In my opinion the ends of justice would best be served by a new trial on all issues.

Certiorari denied, Fla., 352 So.2d 169.
H. R. 2472 

One Hundred Seventeenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-two 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 82422 

Cadiz Jewett Road in Cadiz, Ohio, as the ‘‘John Armor Bingham Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. JOHN ARMOR BINGHAM POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 82422 Cadiz Jewett Road in Cadiz, Ohio, shall 

be known and designated as the ‘‘John Armor Bingham Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘John Armor Bingham Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
256 La. 365

#### Thomas J. INGERSOLL v. STAR CHRYSLER, INC., et al.

No. 50644.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 26, 1970.

In re: Star Chrysler, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 234 So.2d 85.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TODD ALLEN,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 592 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of March, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
#### HERITAGE CORPORATION OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. CAVALIER GROUP, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-979.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32253]



[[Page 65061]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS


Agenda and Notice of Public Meeting of the South Dakota Advisory 
Committee

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and 
regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, that a meeting of 
the South Dakota Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene at 
1:00 p.m. and adjourn at 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 8, 1997, at the 
Holiday Inn City Center, 100 West 8th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota 
57104. The purpose of the meeting is to provide orientation for new SAC 
members and planning for a fair housing workshop.
    Persons desiring additional information, or planning a presentation 
to the Committee, should contact John Dulles, Director of the Rocky 
Mountain Regional Office, 303-866-1400 (TDD 303-866-1049). Hearing-
impaired persons who will attend the meeting and require the services 
of a sign language interpreter should contact the Regional Office at 
least ten (10) working days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
    The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of the 
rules and regulations of the Commission.

    Dated at Washington, DC, December 4, 1997.
Carol-Lee Hurley,
Chief, Regional Programs Coordination Unit.
[FR Doc. 97-32253 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6335-01-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Luis Alberto LUQUEZ-ACEDO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10286.

D.C. No. CR-00-01601-1-FRZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2002.

Decided Aug. 14, 2002.

*785Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, FISHER and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendant appeals his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm.

Defendant first argues that the district court erred by finding that his post-*Miranda*confession was admissible at trial. He asserts that border patrol agents initially processed him for voluntary return to Mexico when they found him in No-gales, Arizona near the United States/Mexieo border. He contends that his subsequent confession, after he was read his *Miranda*rights, was the result of the agents’ improper promise that he would be returned to Mexico.

We disagree. When Defendant filled out the 1-213 form, he requested voluntary return to Mexico. He was never promised voluntary return to Mexico. Thus, his statements were voluntary. *See United States v. Bautista-Avila,*6 F.3d 1360,1364 (9th Cir.1993). Accordingly, his post-Miranda confession was not tainted by involuntary pre-Miranda statements. *See United States v. Orso,*266 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir.2001) (en banc).

We also reject Defendant’s contention that Agent Manning’s testimony was used to establish Defendant’s identity. Although Agent Manning testified that one of the individuals for whom he completed an 1-213 form was named Luis Luquez-Acedo and that he recognized Defendant in the courtroom as Luquez-Acedo, Manning then explained that he remembered Defendant from the suppression hearing, and not from the day of the arrest. The government established Defendant’s identity with Agent Rubinoffs testimony and with documentary evidence (Defendant’s fingerprints and photograph, and his INS alien file). Under these circumstances, the district court did not err by admitting Agent Manning’s testimony.

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Murry WORONER, Appellant, v. Ira SOCHET, Appellee.

No. 70-865.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1971.

Whitman, Wolfe & Glick, Miami, for appellant.

Shackleford, Farrior, Stallings & Evans, and John I. Von Voris, Tampa, for appel-lee.

Before PEARSON, CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant-appellant Woroner seeks review of an adverse final summary judgment and award of taxable costs entered in an action brought by plaintiff-appellee Sochet upon a negotiable promissory note.

Appellant contends: (1) entry of the adverse summary judgment herein was erroneous because of genuine issues of material fact, (2) denial of rehearing was improper (3) award of attorney fees and taxable costs constituted error. We do not agree, and affirm.

The sole defense to the suit on the promissory note was the extension of time for payment. We agree with the trial court that appellee demonstrated the non-existence of a genuine issue of material fact. Holl v. Talcott, Fla.1966, 191 So.2d 40, 43. We also agree that appellant’s pleadings, depositions and affidavits did not demonstrate the existence of an issue of material fact as to whether consideration for the extension was given. The additional affidavit contravened Rule 1.510(c), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A. See also: Hardcastle v. Mobley, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 715.

*297We find that the appellant’s contentions as to the denial of the rehearing and the awarding of attorney’s fees and taxable costs are without merit. Appellant has failed to demonstrate reversible error as to his other arguments on appeal.

Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.
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-Q of Sara Lee Corporation(the “Company”) for the fiscal quarter ended October 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brenda C. Barnes, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, 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 materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. 

 

 

Dated: November 10, 2005 

 

/s/ Brenda C. Barnes, 

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report of Delta Entertainment Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:  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 operation of the Company.  3. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.   Date: March 31, 2011 By: /s/ Marshall Freeman Marshall Freeman Chief Executive Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2475 

To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, including 

toll lanes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2021 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To allow certain veterans to use high occupancy vehicle lanes, 

including toll lanes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘HOV Lanes for Heroes 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. HOV FACILITIES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 166(b) of title 23, United 

8 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol9 lowing: 

10 ‘‘(6) DISABLED VETERANS.— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2475 IH

1 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The public authority 

2 may allow a disabled veteran to use the HOV 

3 facility if such veteran has a license plate that 

4 clearly identifies the vehicle, a registered trans5 ponder, or other method of identification the 

6 public authority considers necessary for quali7 fication. 

8 ‘‘(B) DEFINITION OF DISABLED VET9 ERAN.—For purposes of this paragraph, the 

10 term ‘disabled veteran’ means a veteran (as 

11 such term is defined in section 101 of title 38) 

12 who the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has de13 termined has a service-connected (as such term 

14 is defined in such section) disability rated at or 

15 above a percentage determined to be qualifying 

16 by the public authority. 

17 ‘‘(C) OCCUPANCY EXCEPTION.—Notwith18 standing the occupancy requirement of sub19 section (a)(2), 1 occupant described in subpara20 graph (B) of this paragraph may be permitted 

21 to use a HOV facility. 

22 ‘‘(D) NO CHARGE FOR TOLLS.—Under this 

23 paragraph, a public authority may charge no 

24 toll.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2475 IH

1 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 166 of 

2 such title is further amended— 

3 (1) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ‘‘through 

4 (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘through (6)’’; and 

5 (2) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ‘‘paragraph 

6 (4) or (5)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (4), (5), or 

7 (6)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS