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

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,794,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,079,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   360,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,889,000
<PP&E>                                      16,282,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,799,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              22,870,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,235,000
<BONDS>                                      4,544,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        88,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,188,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                22,870,000
<SALES>                                      8,238,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,238,000
<CGS>                                        7,590,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,590,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,491,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             597,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (12,069,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (12,069,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           (12,069,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (12,069,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.45)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.45)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        76,521,928
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                       20,533,100
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                         20,494,469
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                   4,893,194
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                             111,682,718
<CASH>                                         412,187
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                           2,037,552
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                      26,103,676
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             144,993,917
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             96,346,128
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        3,602,775
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  37,814,322
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               144,993,917
<PREMIUMS>                                  10,842,830
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          5,663,378
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             105,776
<OTHER-INCOME>                               1,017,041
<BENEFITS>                                   7,375,648
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                  1,825,233
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         3,762,052
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,666,092
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,055,040
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,611,052
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,611,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.06
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
{(b)(4)]

01800000010355


{(b)(4)]

01800000010360


Le Ailius,

{(b)(5)]

——
[Shak Te ccomaryit of Te tree yore pole’

{(6)(4)]

((b)(5))

01800000010357


{(0)(4)]

01800000010356



{(b)(4)}

amc of bt Cade.

{(b)(4))

01800000010359


((b)(6)]

{((b)(5)]

“> bhehé wide mi. U -
dT That

{(b)(5)]

{(b)(4)]

— tut

&.

Treva

s——wyv
/053 —> (I.27¥
1.53 — 12.27

Off treet Se LUulf
BA —

01800000010351


pe a aaa

{(b)(4)]

{:W4G—->

((b)(5)}

((b)(4)]

01800000010362


((b)(4)]

((b)(5)}

6 Biles ances lone ‘anaht- Frule N Woven
{= Beh ham boda Ser bt pole

r"
{((b)(5))

01800000010361


Zz Alay [ee ’

sop

{(b)(4)]

01800000010358


((b)(4)}

01800000010354


ou dogrt fo 2 P& spttielnil

{(b)(4)]

Vinge hhw Mnsetlod, probe

((b)(4)]

01800000010353



{(b)(4)]

01800000010352


To: David Aufhauser opt o
From: Peter Fisher
Date: November 8, 2001 wt

This afternoon at 2:30 Bob Rubin called me and | returned the call
shortly thereafter.

He informed me that that a non-public investor (1 assume he meant one whose
name was not now known to be involved) was interested in

injecting equity into Enron but faced the risk of a downgrade of Enron

below investment grade. While bankers had apparently suggested

to the rating agency that instead of downgrading why didn't the

agency suggest what steps would be necessary to prevent a downgrade.

Bob explained that the a suggestion had been made to another public sector
official that he place a call to the rating agency to encourage them to

work with the bankers and the investor but that the official had declined

to do so. Bob wondered what | thought of my placing such a call.

| told Bob that both my heart and my head told me not to place that

call and that | thought the person best placed -- with the most credibility --

to make that call would be the potential equity investor. Bob said that he
understood my reaction and thought it reasonable, Bob also stated that
conversations — direct or indirect — between the rating agency and the investor
were occurring this afternoon,

Rh

01800000010363
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996             SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          68,645                 128,085
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,258,649               1,108,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                    77,050                  84,213
<INVENTORY>                                  2,788,654               2,376,105
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,109,348               3,567,003
<PP&E>                                       5,332,622               4,067,865
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,235,079               2,193,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,257,623               5,491,026
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,472,438               1,994,975
<BONDS>                                      1,678,728                 851,796
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                     1,186,192               1,064,193
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,398,984               1,104,959
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,257,623               5,491,026
<SALES>                                     12,498,993              12,115,865
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,666,978              12,240,378
<CGS>                                        8,982,259               8,734,461
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,902,279              11,667,501
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               341,797                 316,289
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                   2,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             209,124                 184,095
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                422,902                 388,782
<INCOME-TAX>                                   132,673                 132,782
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            422,902                 388,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   290,229                 256,588
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06                     .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06                     .04
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Certificate

BANK OF AMERICA AUTO TRUST 2010-2





The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Bank of America, National Association (Bank of America), a national banking association, as servicer (in such capacity, the
Servicer) under the Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 24, 2010 (as amended and supplemented, or otherwise modified and in effect from time to time, the Servicing Agreement), by and among Bank of America
Auto Trust 2010-2, U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee, the Servicer, and Bank of America, as custodian, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from June 24, 2010 through December 31, 2010, and of its performance under the Servicing
Agreement has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout
such period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



---

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate on behalf of the
Servicer this 24thday of March, 2011.



/s/ Deborah H. NunnallyName: Deborah H. Nunnally
Title: Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 11.4

<TABLE>

CPI CORP. COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE - BASIC
(in thousands of dollars or shares except per share amounts)
Twenty-four Weeks Ended July 24, 1999 and July 25, 1998

<CAPTION>
                                         Twenty-four Weeks Ended
                                         ----------------------
                                          July 24,    July 25,
                                            1999        1998
                                         ---------    ---------
<S>                                      <C>          <C>
Basic:
  Net earnings (loss) applicable to
    common shares                        $   (886)    $    881
                                         =========    =========
Shares:
  Weighted average number of
    common shares outstanding              17,772       17,588
  Less:  Treasury stock - weighted
    average                                (7,864)      (7,623)
                                         ---------    ---------
  Weighted average number of common
    and common equivalent shares
    outstanding                             9,908        9,965
                                         =========    =========
Net earnings (loss) per common and
    common equivalent shares             $  (0.09)    $   0.09
                                         =========    =========
</TABLE>













                             31
EXHIBIT 32.2






CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. Section 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION


906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In connection with the Annual Report of Full Throttle Indoor Kart Racing, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended May 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Lawrence Kopf, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and








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





Date:  February 12, 2012
By: /s/ Lawrence Kopf

Name: Lawrence Kopf

Title: Chief Financial Officer
#### Perry M. SEGURA, d/b/a Perry Segura and Associates v. LOUISIANA ARCHITECTS SELECTION BOARD et al.

No. 61390.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Perry M. Segura, d/b/a Perry Segura and Associates, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 353 So.2d 330.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### Arthur R. CONNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-900.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for Appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Gerlaugh v. Florida Parole Commission, Fla.1962, 139 So.2d 888.

MANN, C. J., and LILES and BOARD-MAN, JJ., concur.
#### William Henry MURRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-683.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 25, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
BE
AEROSPACE, INC.


EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
REQUIRED BY


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002











In
connection with the Annual Report of BE Aerospace, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Amin J. Khoury,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my
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 operations of the
      Company.




Date:
      February 19, 2008
              By:
      /s/ Amin
      J. KhouryAmin
      J. KhouryChief
      Executive Officer
Employee Benefits Security Administration

U.S. Department of Labor

Judith Mares

Deputy Assistant Secretary

Retirement Savings 

and the Young

Financial Education and Literacy Commission

May 29, 2014 
EBSA 2

The Retirement Plan Coverage Gap: 

Trends in Retirement Plan Participation

Source: Employee Benefits Research Institute, “Figure 1: Trends in Retirement Plan Sponsorship,a Participation, b and Vestingc

Rates Among Workers for Pay, Age 16 and Over,1979, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998, 2003, 2006, 2009, and 2012,” ebri.org Notes, 

Vol. 34, No.8, August 2013, pg.3. 
EBSA 3

The Retirement Plan Landscape: 

Then and Now

Sources: 

Chart 1: Federal Reserve Financial Accounts of the United States (DDP) and ICI "Research Perspective" Vol. 15 No. 3 November 2009

Chart 2: Federal Reserve Financial Accounts of the United States

DB Assets

$235.8 Billion

75%

DC Assets

$74.6 Billion

24%

IRA Assets

$3.0 Billion

1%

Share of Retirement Assets, 1975

DB Assets

$3.1 Trillion

22%

DC Assets

$4.9 Trillion

35%

IRA Assets

$6.2 Trillion

43%

Share of Retirement Assets, 2013
EBSA 4

Like short term savings, saving for retirement 

lags behind other financial needs, like debt

67% 25% 6%

63% 27% 7%

69% 23% 6%

61% 27% 8%

55% 28% 10%

65% 26% 7%

46% 36% 15%

37% 39% 19%

52% 34% 12%

Saving for an 

emergency or having 

savings in general

Total

Gen Y

Gen X

Total

Gen Y

Gen X

Total

Gen Y

Gen X

Saving for retirement

Debt

Behind schedule On track Ahead of schedule

Survey participants in 2007 were asked: For the following, do you think you are behind

schedule, ahead of schedule, or on track compared to others your age? 

Source: American Savings Education Council and AARP, Preparing for Their Future: A Look at the Financial State of Gen X and Gen Y, March 2008.
EBSA 5

For retirement advice, Social Security is 

most trusted, followed by advisors

Source: Greenwald, Mathew, Arie Kapteyn, Olivia S. Mitchell, and Lisa Schneider. Working Paper: What Do People Know About Social Security? 

September 2010.

The Social Security

Administration

Financial advisors

Non-profit organizations

Banks and investment 

companies

The media

In 2010, survey participants were asked: How much do you trust each of the following 

people or organizations to provide you with useful information about preparing for 

retirement?
EBSA 6

Panelists

Lisa Mensah, Founder and Executive Director, Initiative on 

Financial Security, the Aspen Institute

J. Mark Iwry, Senior Advisor to the Secretary and Deputy 

Assistant Secretary (Tax Policy) for Retirement and Health 

Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury

Yvonne Cowser Yancy, Commissioner of Human Resources, 

City of Atlanta
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Thabet SALEH, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 01-10600.

D.C. No. CR-00-00266-1-RLH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 3, 2002.*

Decided July 24, 2002.

Before CHOY, FERGUSON and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Thabet Saleh pled guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to one count of conspiracy to possess and distribute pseudoephedrine, a List I chemical, knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that it would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(d)(2). He appeals his sentence, arguing that he was entitled to a two-level decrease in his offense level pursuant to the safety valve provision of U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2.

In his plea agreement, Saleh waived the right to appeal his conviction and sentence. On appeal, the Government declines to enforce Saleh’s appeal-waiver and instead *106urges us to address the case on the merits. The Government’s position, however, is not binding on this court if we conclude that Saleh knowingly and intelligently waived his right to appeal. *See, e.g., United, States v. Schmidt,*47 F.3d 188,189-92 (7th Cir.1995). Whether a waiver in a plea agreement is valid is reviewed de novo. *See United States v. Michlin,*34 F.3d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1994).

In determining whether the plea agreement was entered into knowingly and voluntarily, we look at the express language of the waiver and the circumstances surrounding the signing and entry of the plea agreement, including compliance with Fed. R.Crim.P. 11. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235. F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000). Saleh does not allege that the appellate waiver, or the plea agreement in general, is invalid, nor is there any indication of this in the record. Saleh knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and the waiver is, therefore, effective.

Because Saleh made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we decline to address Saleh’s argument that he was entitled to a two-level offense level reduction pursuant to § 5C1.2.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

**

 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.
_____________ No. 95-3461

_____________ Herbert J. Brandenburg, * * Appellant, * * v. * * United States of America, * * Appellee. *

___________ Appeals from the United States No. 96-1727 District Court for the

___________ Western District of Arkansas. [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * * Willie L. Ricks, Sr., * * Appellant. *

_____________ Submitted: September 4, 1996 Filed: September 20, 1996

_____________ Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

_____________ PER CURIAM. This is a consolidated appeal. Herbert Brandenburg appeals

### The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, adopting the rep ort and recommendations of the Honorable Beverly R. Stites, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.

The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States Distric t 2 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion . He raised 1 the following issues: (1) denial of the right to a speedy trial; (2) denia l of due process by prosecutorial misconduct; (3) misinterpretation o f U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B); (4) erroneous failure to apply U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 ; (5) failure to make express findings as to relevant conduct; and (6 ) ineffective assistance of counsel. We conclude the district court did not err in denying relief and that an opinion would lack precedential value. Co-defen dant Willie L. Ricks appeals the district court's order denyin g 2 his motion to reduce his sentence. We likewise conclude the district cour t did not err in finding that Ricks--by failing to provide the governmen t with all the information he possessed--did not f ulfill the requirements of 18 U. S.C. § 3553(f)(5). See United States v. Romo , 81 F.3d 84, 86 (8t h Cir. 1996) (standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Charles SLADE, III, Virginia P. Slade, and Designers Press of Orlando, Inc., Appellants, v. Robert W. MILLER and Edward V. Sherwood, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-806.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 15, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard H. Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.