alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 188 (Thursday, September 27, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 59339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [http://www.gpo.gov/]
[FR Doc No: 2012-23893]

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

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT

Administration for Children and Families

45 CFR Part 301

State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures

CFR Correction

    In Title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 200 to 499, 
revised as of October 1, 2011, on page 221, in Sec.  301.1 definitions 
for ``Agent of a Child'' and ``Attorney of a Child'' are added to read 
as follows:

Sec.  301.1  General definitions.

* * * * *
    Agent of a Child means a caretaker relative having custody of or 
responsibility for the child.
* * * * *
    Attorney of a Child means a licensed lawyer who has entered into an 
attorney-client relationship with either the child or the child's 
resident parent to provide legal representation to the child or 
resident parent related to establishment of paternity, or the 
establishment, modification, or enforcement of child support. An 
attorney-client relationship imposes an ethical and fiduciary duty upon 
the attorney to represent the client's best interests under applicable 
rules of professional responsibility.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2012-23893 Filed 9-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
```
**Exhibit      11.2**

**CPI      Corp.**

**Computation      of Per Common Share Earnings (Loss) - Basic**

|                                                                         |   | 12                  Weeks Ended |        |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------------------|-------------|
| *thousands,                  except share and per share data*                |   | April                  29, 2006 |        | April                  30, 2005 |   |
|                                                                         |   |                            |        |   |   |
| Basic:                                                                       |   |                            |        |   |   |
| Net                  earnings (loss) applicable to common shares             |   | $                               | 1,844       |   | $ | (2,058 | ) |
|                                                                         |   |                            |        |   |   |   |   |
| Shares:                                                                      |   |                            |        |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted                  average number of common and                       |   |                            |        |   |   |   |   |
| common                  equivalent shares outstanding                        |   |                            | 16,981,047  |   |   | 18,449,151 |   |
| Less:                  Treasury stock - weigted average                      |   |                            | (10,616,198 | ) |   | (10,639,543 | ) |
|                                                                         |   |                            |        |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted                  average number of common and common                |   |                            |        |   |   |   |   |
| equivalent                  shares outstanding                               |   |                            | 6,364,849   |   |   | 7,809,608 |   |
|                                                                         |   |                            |        |   |   |   |   |
| Net                  earnings (loss) per common and common equivalent shares |   | $                               | 0.29        |   | $ | (0.26 | ) |
|                                                                         |   |                            |        |   |   |   |   |
#### Rudolph C. HERRING, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-1047.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Dec. 22, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31142]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in Permissible Nonbanking 
Activities or To Acquire Companies That are Engaged in Permissible 
Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR Part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company that engages either 
directly or through a subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking 
activity that is listed in Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) 
or that the Board has determined by Order to be closely related to 
banking and permissible for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise 
noted, these activities will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than December 23, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Philip Jackson, Applications 
Officer) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1413:
    1. Marshall & Ilsley Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; to acquire 
Advantage Bancorp, Inc., Kenosha, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly 
acquire Advantage Bank, FSB, Kenosha, Wisconsin, and thereby engage in 
the operation of a savings association, pursuant to Sec.  
225.28(b)(4)(i) of the Board's Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, November 21, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-31142 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                           47922
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2752
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 51524
<PP&E>                                          626414
<DEPRECIATION>                                  204913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  759430
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            34165
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        137386
<OTHER-SE>                                      468425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    759430
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                167256
<CGS>                                           165206
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   165206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  7822
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  1188
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  98
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5722)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
f i r m w a r eb e e p B E E P b e e p . . .

B E E P B E E P P i x h a w k n e e d s y o u r a t t e n t i o n : b e e p B E E P b e e p . . . B E E P B E E P B E E P E v e r y t h i n g i s O K : m u s i c a l t o n e



# !• • •

• • •

• •

•

•

•

• • • • • • •

•

•P i x h a w k K i t U s e r G u i d e V 8 © 3 D R o b o t i c s , I n c . 2 0 M a r c h 2 0 1 4
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 December 27, 2008 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 material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

Dated: February 4, 2009



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|/s/ Brenda C. Barnes,               
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### J. A. JONES CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES, Respondent.

No. JJ-180.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 17, 1978.

*864Robert R. Feagin, III, of Holland & Knight, Tallahassee, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

A building contractor’s petition for writ of prohibition to prevent the Department of General Services from liquidating certain interest-bearing certificates of deposit placed as security by the contractor.

The petition for writ of prohibition is treated as a petition for review of agency action determining petitioner’s substantial interests in the interest-bearing certificates of deposit referred to in the petition, and for a stay of agency action pending review. The petition does not exhibit an agency order or otherwise indicate that proceedings under Section 120.57(1) or (2) have been had by the agency leading to such an order, or that such proceedings have been denied. Proceedings complying with Section 120.57 and an order complying with Section 120.59 being essential to any lawful action by the agency, it appears that the petition is premature. See *State ex rel. Department of General Services*v. *Willis,*344 So.2d 580 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977), and *McDonald v. Department of Banking and Finance,*346 So.2d 569 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).

If an order for the threatened action has been or is hereafter entered upon appropriate proceedings, a motion to stay it pending judicial review will be entertained by the agency and, if otherwise denied, will be granted to the extent necessary for this court to entertain a renewed petition for review and a renewed motion to stay.

The petition for review and motion to stay are

DENIED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and MELVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 10-3118

___________

Roberto Sanchez-Florez, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

United States of America, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 24, 2011

Filed: June 29, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roberto Sanchez-Florez was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute 500

grams or more of a methamphetamine mixture. See United States v. Sanchez-Florez,

533 F.3d 938 (8th Cir. 2008) (affirming on direct appeal). He now appeals the district

court’s1

 judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, and has been granted by

the district court a certificate of appealability (COA) on his claims of ineffective

assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following careful review, see Covey v.

United States, 377 F.3d 903, 906 (8th Cir. 2004) (district court’s denial of ineffective1

The Honorable Donald E. O’Brien, United States District Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa.
assistance claim presents mixed question of law and fact; ineffective-assistance issue

is reviewed de novo, but findings of underlying predicate facts are reviewed for clear

error), we agree with the district court that Sanchez-Florez did not show that he

suffered prejudice as a result of deficient performance by his trial or appellate counsel,

most notably with regard to counsel’s efforts to impeach witnesses, see United States

v. Orr, 636 F.3d 944, 951-52 (8th Cir. 2011) (failure to impeach witness constitutes

ineffective assistance when there is a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s

failure, jury would have had reasonable doubt of defendant’s guilt); Sinisterra v.

United States, 600 F.3d 900, 912 (8th Cir. 2010) (claim that appellate counsel was

ineffective for failing to raise issue on appeal failed without showing of prejudice);

see also Sanchez-Florez, 533 F.3d at 941 (noting overwhelming evidence of

defendant’s guilt); Williams v. United States, 452 F.3d 1009, 1013 (8th Cir. 2006)

(when determining if prejudicial deficient performance by counsel exists, court must

consider totality of evidence before judge or jury). 

We also decline to expand the scope of the COA to reach additional arguments

in Sanchez-Florez’s supplemental brief that he was denied due process by the trial

court’s admission of noncredible witness testimony, see Winfield v. Roper, 460 F.3d

1026, 1040 (8th Cir. 2006) (grant of COA requires demonstration that reasonable

jurist would find district court’s ruling on constitutional claim debatable or wrong),

and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________

-2-
Certi ~ vf Participation 

certificate is awarded to 

27TH DS:LR p;,; p~ . 

uw u "'-'-'' 1 

)' 

~;&7ke•f/
p.1 

OAR Box 1865 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

50) IV-E-38 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 12/3/2008 9:15:29 AM Sheet 50 of 105 
P,2_ 

A-83 - 27 

CORPORATIO N ° ° 

TELEPHONE CALL REPORT - INDUSTRIAL BOILER S02 

DATE: April 13, 1987 

TO: Ray DuBose 

Power Plant - UNC 

179A Cameron Avenue 

Chapel Hill, NC 27514 

FROM: J. Thomas Waddell 

SUBJECT; Information on UNC's Planned FBC Units. 

Mr. Dubose provided the following information: 

o Number/size of units - 2 units/250,000 pph each 

o Manufacturer - undecided; still reviewing bids 

o Design Fuel - Eastern Ky. bituminous coal 

HHV=11,500 Btu/lb; S content-2.5 wt.% 

o Bed Type - circulating 

o Projected Start-Up - August 1990 

o The FBC's will be designed to meet the NSPS for S02< 

Progress Center/3200 E. Chapel Hill Rd./Nelson Hwy./P.O. Box 13000/Research Triangle Park. N.C 27709/(919)541-9100
<PAGE>   1





                         Report of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors and Stockholders
Health Information Systems Corporation

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Health
Information Systems Corporation (the  Company ) and Subsidiary as of October
31, 1996 and 1995 and the related consolidated statements of income,
stockholders  equity and cash flows for the year ended October 31, 1996 and the
period from June 8, 1995 (date of inception) to October 31, 1995. These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company s management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on
our audits.

We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of
material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence
supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit
also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant
estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial
statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis
for our opinion.

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Health
Information Systems Corporation and Subsidiary at October 31, 1996 and 1995 and
the consolidated results of their operations and their cash flows for the year
ended October 31, 1996 and the period from June 8, 1995 (date of inception) to
October 31, 1995 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.




November 15, 1996                 Ernst & Young LLP
New York, New York
EXHIBIT 13.1




Certification by the Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Camelot Information Systems Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Yiming Ma, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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: June 8, 2011










By:
/s/ Yiming MaName:
Yiming MaTitle:
Chief Executive Officer
#### Samuel FUNT, Appellant, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, Appellee.

No. 69-615.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 24, 1970.

Phillip Edelman, Miami, for appellant.

Joseph Wanick, City Atty., and Ira M. Elegant, Asst. City Atty., for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Carol City Utilities, Inc. v. Dade County, Fla.App.1962, 143 So.2d 828; Bloomfield v. Mayo, Fla.App.1960, 119 So.2d 417; and 14 Am.Jur.2d, Certiorari § 22.
Exhibit 21



List of Registrant’s Subsidiaries as of June 30, 2012



|                                             |  | Jurisdiction of
|-------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------
|Name                                         |  | Incorporation  
|Aeroflex Asia Ltd.                           |  | Hong Kong      
|Aeroflex Asia Pacific Ltd.                   |  | England        
|Aeroflex Colorado Springs, Inc.              |  | Delaware       
|Aeroflex Control Components, Inc.            |  | Michigan       
|Aeroflex France SAS                          |  | France         
|Aeroflex Gaisler AB                          |  | Sweden         
|Aeroflex GmbH                                |  | Germany        
|Aeroflex Incorporated                        |  | Delaware       
|Aeroflex / Inmet, Inc.                       |  | Michigan       
|Aeroflex Japan K.K.                          |  | Japan          
|Aeroflex Limited                             |  | England        
|Aeroflex / Metelics, Inc.                    |  | California     
|Aeroflex Microelectronics (Nanjing) Co. Ltd. |  | China          
|Aeroflex Plainview, Inc.                     |  | Delaware       
|Aeroflex RAD, Inc.                           |  | New York       
|Aeroflex Systems Group, Inc.                 |  | Delaware       
|Aeroflex / Weinschel, Inc.                   |  | Michigan       
|Aeroflex Wichita, Inc.                       |  | Delaware
#### Raymond C. BACON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-633.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1970.

Raymond C. Bacon, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and HENDRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order of judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 238 (Thursday, December 11, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32450]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 121

[Docket No. 28109; Amendment No. 121-266]
RIN 2120-AF76


Revisions to Digital Flight Data Recorder Rules; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Aviation Administration published in the Federal 
Register of July 17, 1997, a final rule requiring that certain 
airplanes be equipped to accommodate additional digital flight data 
recorder (DFDR) parameters. This document corrects an error in the 
section that describes the parameters for certain turbine-engine-
powered airplanes with 10-19 seats.

DATES: Effective on December 11, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gary E. Davis, telephone (202) 267-8166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Aviation Administration 
published in the Federal Register of July 17, 1997, a document 
requiring that certain airplanes be equipped to accommodate additional 
digital flight data recorder (DFDR) parameters. Under Sec. 121.344a, 
the range of parameters was incorrectly referenced. This correction 
corrects the ranges.

    In rule FR Doc 97-18514, published on July 17, 1997, (62 FR 38362) 
make the following correction. On page 38381, in the first column, 
paragraph (a)(1), in the second line, remove ``121.344(a)(11)'' and add 
``121.344(a)(18)'' in its place.

    Issued in Washington, DC on December 8, 1997.
Donald P. Byrne,
Assistant Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-32450 Filed 12-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### Mark Allen MURPHY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-230.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 5, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Peter M. DeManio, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.