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

<ARTICLE>                              5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Agrilink
Foods, Inc. Form 10-Q for the period ended December 26, 1998 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statement.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                           1000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JUN-26-1999
<PERIOD-START>                         JUN-28-1998
<PERIOD-END>                           DEC-26-1998
<CASH>                                      18,340
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                              123,723
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                373,662
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           548,933
<PP&E>                                     394,809
<DEPRECIATION>                              82,465
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,272,115
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      338,043
<BONDS>                                    200,015
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                 178,161
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,272,115
<SALES>                                    559,282
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           559,282
<CGS>                                      390,445
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              390,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            70,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          32,449
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             65,651
<INCOME-TAX>                                25,709
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         39,942
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             16,366
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                23,576
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit
3 2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
 CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002
  Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of
Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officers of Granite Construction Incorporated (the “Company”) do hereby certify
to such officers’ knowledge that:
  (i) The
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 of the Company
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.








Dated:
      February 25, 2010
              
              
              
              
              
              
              
              Dated:
      February 25, 2010
            /s/ William G.
      DoreyWilliam
      G. DoreyPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer
              
              
              
              
              
              /s/ LeAnne
      M. StewartLeAnne
      M. StewartSenior
      Vice Presidentand
      Chief Financial Officer








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signatures that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Granite Construction Incorporated and will
be retained by Granite Construction Incorporated and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Appendix II

How To Make A Privacy Act Request

An individual may: request notification as to whether an FTC system of records contains

records retrieved using his or her personal identifier; request access to records in a system of

records; and contest the accuracy or completeness of records. 

Each of those actions may be initiated by the individual by mailing or delivering a

written request that includes the individual’s name, return address, and signature, addressed to:

Privacy Act Request

Office of the General Counsel

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.

Washington, DC 20580

Note: Individuals are not required to follow these procedures for FTC systems that are

designed to allow individuals to review, access or correct their system records online or through

other means (e.g., National Do Not Call Registry system). 

Contents of the written request. Where a written request is required, the request must

specify the pertinent FTC system(s) of records, and include any additional information needed to

locate the records. The individual’s signature will be deemed a certification that he or she is the

individual to whom the record pertains. The FTC may require additional verification of identity

when reasonably necessary to assure that records are not improperly disclosed. The FTC will

not require additional verification if the records about the individual are available to the public

under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). More detailed information about how to make a

Privacy Act request is contained in the section 4.13 of the FTC’s Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 4.13,

which may be viewed online at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/. 

Exempt systems. Some record systems are exempt from disclosure to the individual and

from other requirements of the Privacy Act. See the system of records notice applicable to the

records you are requesting if you want to know if that system is exempt. The FTC is not

required to provide an individual access to any information compiled in reasonable anticipation

of a civil action or proceeding. 5 U.S.C. 552a(d)(5).

Requests to correct or amend. A request to correct or amend your Privacy Act records

must state the specific nature and reason for the request. The FTC does not delete or remove

records in response to a request to correct or amend a Privacy Act record, including any records

that have been publicly posted on the Internet (e.g., public comments). All FTC records,

including public record documents, are retained and destroyed only in accordance with schedules

and guidance issued or approved by the National Archives and Records Administration under the

Federal Records Act and other applicable laws. If a Privacy Act request results in the correction

or amendment of a record that has been posted on the FTC’s public record, the FTC will correct

or amend the public record accordingly without deleting or removing it.
Privacy Act records maintained by other Federal agencies. For records collected and

maintained by other Federal agencies, please contact those agencies directly or visit their Web

sites to obtain access.
256 La. 757

#### Gary FACIANE and Ogise Richardson v. Angelo BOSCO and Ralph Privette.

No. 50772.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 25, 1970.

In re: Angelo Bosco and Ralph Privette applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of St. Tammany. 236 So.2d 601.

The application is denied. The result reached by the Court of Appeal is correct.

SUMMERS, Justice, is of the opinion the writ should be granted.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I SM A EL CO RN EJ O - REY ES, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 11- 73235 A ge nc yN o. A 089- 270- 002 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o a r do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. Is m ae l C ornej o-R ey es , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order denyi ng hi s m ot i on t o reopen to s e e ka d

ju s tm e n t o f

s ta tu s . W e h a v e ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED NO V 16 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 73235 2 r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to r e o p e n , Can o-Mer i da v. I N S, 311 F . 3d 960, 964 ( 9th C i r . 2002) , an dwe g r an tth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. T he B IA abused i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng C ornej o-R ey es ’ m ot i on t o reopen for f ai l ure t o p re se ntsuff

i ci entevi dence of a bona fi de m arri age t o a U ni t ed S t at es ci t i ze n w here the evi dence dem on strat ed thatC ornej o-R ey es had k no w n h i s w i fe for a tl ea stsi x years pri or t o m arri age, the coup l e l i ved t og ether pri or t o m arri age, a n dh is n e w w if

e w a s p r e g n a n t w ith h is c h ild . Se e M at te rof V e larde - P ac he c o, 23 I . & N . D e c . 253, 256 ( B I A 2002) ( e n banc ) ( f i ndi ng e vi de nc e tha tr e s ponde ntand h is w if e liv e dto g e th e rp r io rto m a rr ia g e a n dth e irU n ite dS ta te s c itiz e n s o n ’s b irth ce rt i fi cat e t o con st i tut e c l ear and conv i nci ng evi dence of a bona fi de m arri age) . W e r e m a n dto th e B I A f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith th is di s pos i t i on. W e di s m i s s a s m ootC orne j o- R e y e s ’ S e pt e m be r4, 2012, m ot i on t o r e m and to th e B I A . P E T I T I ON F OR RE V I E W GR AN T E D; RE MAND E D.
#### Ruben RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner, v. CAUDLE MANUFACTURING CO. and Federated Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Respondents.

No. 43016.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 8, 1972.

Cause dismissed.
#### Robert VONOCZKY, Appellant, v. Bill HEDRICK; K.J. Wendt; Hugh G. Harris; Mahmood Choudhury; Lance Luria; Tamer Khalil; United States of America, Appellee.

No. 02-1873.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 7, 2002.

Filed Aug. 14, 2002.

*42Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Robert Vonoczky appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action under *Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,*403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Having carefully reviewed the record, *see Beck v. Skon,*253 F.3d 330, 332-33 (8th Cir.2001) (standard of review), we affirm.

Vonoczky sued various medical personnel at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri,2 claiming deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. He based his claim on allegations related to an above-the-knee amputation (AKA) performed in April 1999 and the pre-AKA treatment he received for a wound and developing bone infection.

Vonoczky’s claims regarding the pre-AKA treatment that appellees rendered essentially amounted to a disagreement with the course of treatment, and the record showed that appellees aggressively treated — not deliberately disregarded — his medical conditions. *See Jolly v. Knudsen,*205 F.3d 1094, 1096 (8th Cir.2000) (analysis of Eighth Amendment claims). Further, the evidence Vonoczky offered failed to establish his allegations about suffering kidney and liver damage from prescribed medications, or about his condition worsening because of the pre-AKA treatment he received. *See Moody v. St. Charles County,*23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that to defeat summary judgment, party must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would allow finding in party’s favor on more than just speculation or conjecture).

Vonoczky also failed to create a triable issue on his AKA-related claims. The summary judgment record showed that he insisted on having an amputation, and that his consent to the AKA was valid. *See Dulany v. Carnahan,*132 F.3d 1234, 1243 (8th Cir.1997) (describing how an inmate’s allegation about not remembering signing surgical consent form, coupled with her medical expert’s affidavit expressing doubt about informed consent, was speculation that did not create reasonable inference of deliberate indifference). Further, another specialist’s recommendation of a through-the-knee amputation as a treatment option failed to support Vonoczky’s claim that appellees knew he really wanted a below-the-knee amputation (BKA), nor did it support that a BKA was even medically appropriate.

Vonoczky’s remaining arguments provide no basis for reversal. Accordingly, we affirm, *see*8th Cir. R. 47B, and we deny his request for appointment of counsel.

1

. The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.

2

. One physician defendant was dismissed pri- or to service of process, and the District Court granted Vonoczky’s motion to dismiss the non-medical defendants.
254 La. 837

#### Terry HEBERT v. SENTRY INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 50078.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: Terry Hebert applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Acadia. 224 So.2d 842.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there is no error in the judgment complained of.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60899]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30017]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5922-1]


Proposed Settlement Involving EPA and the Loef Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under Sections 104, 106(a), 107 and 122 of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has offered to 
Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs); the Loef Company, Inc., a 
debtor-in-possession in bankruptcy case no. 96-31517 pending before the 
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia 
(Bankruptcy Court), Robert L. Blumberg, Frederick J. Loef, and Sarah G. 
Loef; an Agreement for Recovery of Response Cost at the Interstate Lead 
Company Superfund Site (ILCO) in Leeds, Alabama, and the Sapp Battery 
Superfund Site (Sapp Battery) in Alford, Florida. EPA will consider 
public comments on the proposed settlement for thirty (30) days. EPA 
may withdraw from or modify the Agreement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the proposed settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. Copies of the proposed 
settlement are available from: Ms. Paula V. Batchelor, Waste Management 
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 4, 61 Forsyth St., Atlanta, GA 30303, 404-
562-8887.
    Written comments may be submitted to Mrs. Kim Dao Vu at the address 
above within 30 days of the date of publication.

    Dated: November 4, 1997.
Anita Davis,
Acting Chief, Programs Services Branch, Waste Management Division.
[FR Doc. 97-30017 Filed 11-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 229-230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-34239]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 7, 1998.

Place: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any matters carried forward from a previously announced meeting.


[[Page 230]]


CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to the 
Board; 202-452-3204.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.bog.frb.fed.us for an electronic announcement that not only 
lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other information 
about the meeting.

    Dated: December 31, 1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-34239 Filed 12-31-97; 10:42 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

321 CAF 12-01823 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

IN THE MATTER OF MAKAYLA S.

--------------------------------------------- STEUBEN COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER PETITIONER-RESPONDENT;

ALECIA P., RESPONDENT-APPELLANT, AND DAVID S., RESPONDENT.

CARA A. WALDMAN, FAIRPORT, FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

MICHELLE COOKE, BATH, FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

CHRISTINE M. VALKENBURGH, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, BATH.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Steuben County (Marianne Furfure, A.J.), entered September 25, 2012 in a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The order, among other things, transferred guardianship and custody of the subject child to petitioner.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, respondent mother appeals from an order that, inter alia, terminated her parental rights with respect to the subject child and ordered that the child be freed for adoption. We reject the mother’s contention that Family Court erred in finding that the child is a permanently neglected child and in terminating the mother’s parental rights with respect to her. “Petitioner met its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that it made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the relationship between the mother and [the child] by providing ‘services and other assistance aimed at ameliorating or resolving the problems preventing [the child’s] return to [the mother’s] care’ . . . , and that the mother failed substantially and continuously to plan for the future of the child although physically and financially able to do so . . . Although the mother participated in the services offered by petitioner, she did not successfully address or gain insight into the problems that led to the removal of the child and continued to prevent the child’s safe return” ( Matter of Giovanni K. , 62 AD3d 1242, 1243, lv denied 12 NY3d 715; see § 384-b [7] [a]; cf. Matter of Olivia L. , 41 AD3d 1226, 1226- 1227). Contrary to the mother’s further contention, the court properly denied her request for a suspended judgment ( see Matter of-2- 321 CAF 12-01823

Lilliana G. [Orena G.] , 104 AD3d 1224, 1225; Matter of Dahmani M. [Jana M.] , 104 AD3d 1245, 1246).

Entered: March 21, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3439]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP97-215-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

February 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 29, 1997, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin), 200 North Third Street, Suite 300, 
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501, filed in the above docket, a request 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act and Sections 157.205 and 
157.211 of the Commission's Regulations for authorization to utilize an 
existing tap, authorized under Williston Basin's blanket certificate 
issued in Docket Nos. CP82-487-000, et al., to effectuate natural gas 
transportation deliveries to Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. for ultimate 
use by additional residential customers in Custer County, Montana, all 
as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the 
Commission and open to public inspection.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant 
to Section 157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the 
time allowed therefor, the proposed activity is deemed to be authorized 
effective on the day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a 
protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time 
allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be treated as 
an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural 
Gas Act.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3439 Filed 2-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree in United States v. J&D 
Enterprises of Duluth, Inc. under the Clean Air Act

    Notice is hereby given that a Consent Decree in United States v. 
J&D Enterprises of Duluth, Inc., No. 5-95-298 (PAM/RLE) (D. Minn.), has 
been entered into by the United States on behalf of U.S. EPA and J&D 
Enterprises of Duluth, Inc. (``J&D'') and lodged with the Court on 
November 21, 1997. The proposed Consent Decree resolves certain claims 
of U.S. EPA against J&D under Section 112 of the Clean Air Act and the 
asbestos NESHAP regulations, 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M, with respect 
to an operation located at 923 Shepard Road in Saint Paul, Ramsey 
County, Minnesota. Under the Decree, J&D will, inter alia, pay the 
United States a civil penalty of $27,500.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree for 30 days following the publication of this 
Notice. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530, and should refer to United States v. 
J&D Enterprises of Duluth, Inc., D.J. Ref. No. 90-5-2-1-1427B.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Office of the 
United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, 300 South Fourth 
Street, Minneapolis, MN 55415; the Region 5 Office of the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 
60604; and at the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th 
Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005 (202-624-0892). A copy of the proposed 
Consent Decree may be obtained in person or by mail from the Consent 
Decree Library, 1120 G Street, N.W., 4th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20005. 
In requesting a copy of the proposed Consent Decree, please enclose a 
check in the amount of $9.75 (25 cents per page for reproduction 
costs), payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Bruce S. Gelber,
Section Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environmental and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-32904 Filed 12-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M