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

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                   1,198,319,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                      42,954,000
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                           321,998,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            29,844,000
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>              3,025,774,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                   2,716,601,000
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                     2,729,678,000
<LOANS>                                 18,395,552,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                253,248,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          26,993,344,000
<DEPOSITS>                              22,019,412,000
<SHORT-TERM>                             1,823,806,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                        305,018,000
<LONG-TERM>                                570,545,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    81,244,000
<OTHER-SE>                               2,193,319,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>          26,993,344,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                          1,554,478,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                          366,431,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                            33,374,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                         1,954,283,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                         826,844,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         942,459,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                    1,011,824,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               46,026,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           3,311,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                            837,034,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            473,876,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 317,859,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               317,859,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.61
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.36
<LOANS-NON>                                 84,219,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                35,831,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                            11,032,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                           231,390,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               51,976,000
<RECOVERIES>                                21,538,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          253,248,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       253,248,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                    253,248,000
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7475 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7475

 To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the period of a 
 nationwide pandemic is a special enrollment period under the Federal 
       Employees Health Benefits Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2020

   Mr. Vela introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 5, United States Code, to provide that the period of a 
 nationwide pandemic is a special enrollment period under the Federal 
       Employees Health Benefits Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Ensuring FEHBP Coverage During 
Pandemic Act''.

SEC. 2. FEHBP SPECIAL ENROLLMENT PERIOD DURING PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY.

    (a) In General.--Section 8905 of title 5, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(j)(1) An unenrolled employee may, during the period that a 
nationwide pandemic is in effect (as determined by the Office of 
Personnel Management), enroll in a health benefits plan under this 
chapter.
    ``(2) An employee who is enrolled in such a plan may, during any 
period described in paragraph (1), change such enrollment.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply 
to any contract entered into under section 8902 of title 5, United 
States Code, before, on, or after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-7404

JOHN MATTHEWS GRANT, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus PAGE TRUE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-02-644-3) Submitted: January 30, 2004 Decided: March 24, 2004 Before LUTTIG and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: John Matthews Grant, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and di smiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 12-1

                           FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION

                STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF CONSOLIDATED RATIO OF
              EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES AND COMBINED FIXED CHARGES
                                    ($000'S)
                                    UNAUDITED
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                 6 months
                                                                   1999
                                                                   ----
        EARNINGS:

<S>                                                            <C>
        Net Earnings                                           $ 20,788
        Taxes on Income                                          11,691
        Total Fixed Charges                                      46,406
        Capitalized Interest                                     (2,061)
        Capitalized Interest Amortized                            1,092
        Equity Earnings of non-consolidated associated
             companies accounted for by the equity
             method, net of dividends                            (7,282)
                                                               --------

                                                               $ 70,634
                                                               ========

        FIXED CHARGES:

        Interest Expense                                       $ 34,785
        Capitalized Interest                                      2,061
        Imputed Interest on non-capitalized lease payments        9,560
                                                               --------

                                                               $ 46,406
                                                               ========

        Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                         1.52
                                                               ========

<FN>


    ----------------
    * There were no preferred shares outstanding during any of the periods
    indicated and therefore the consolidated ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and combined fixed charges and preferred share dividend requirements would
    have been the same as the consolidated ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    and combined fixed charges for each period indicated.

</FN>
</TABLE>
#### CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Charles F. MOORE, Jr., Respondent.

No. 44091.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 27, 1974.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 17-2483

___________________________

Hollie Telford; Brenda Burton

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Alan B. Johnson; Nena James, in her individual official capacity; Rock Springs

Housing Authority; April Thompson; Global E. LLC, also known as Pioneer Park;

Ann Clayton; Judy Cirrillo; Does 1-10; CenturyLink; Hollie Portillo; O'Kelley H.

Pearson; Law Office Hickey and Evans LLP; Thomas Deering, in his individual

and official capacity; United States of America; Donald Thatcher; Eva Tafoya; HUD

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of South Dakota - Pierre

____________

 Submitted: June 22, 2018

Filed: June 27, 2018

[Unpublished]

____________

Before LOKEN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Hollie Telford and Brenda Burton appeal from the order of the District Court

1

granting defendants’ motionsto dismiss this pro se civil action arising froma housing

matter. Appellants have identified no defensible basis for reversal, and we find none. 

We affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

The HonorableRoberto A. Lange, United States DistrictJudge for the District 1

of South Dakota.

-2-
**EXHIBIT 24.1**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

WHEREAS, the undersigned officers and directors of Vital Signs, Inc. (the “Corporation”) desire to authorize Terry D. Wall, William Craig and Jay J. Sturm, to act as their attorneys-in-fact and agents, for the purpose of executing and filing the corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005, including all amendments thereto,

NOW,THEREFORE,

KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints Terry D. Wall, William Craig and Jay J. Sturm and each of them, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, to sign the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2005, including any and all amendments thereto, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of them, full power and authority to do and performeach and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their or his substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this power of attorney in the following capacities on this 13th day of December, 2005.

 

| **Signature******            |   |   | **Title******                                   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------|
| /s/ Terry D. Wall            |   |   | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director |
| **Terry D. Wall**            |   |   |                                            |
| /s/ David J. Bershad         |   |   | Director                                        |
| **David J. Bershad**         |   |   |                                            |
| /s/ Howard W. Donnelly       |   |   | Director                                        |
| **Howard W. Donnelly**       |   |   |                                            |
| /s/ David H. MacCallum       |   |   | Director                                        |
| **David H. MacCallum**       |   |   |                                            |
| /s/ Richard L. Robbins       |   |   | Director                                        |
| **Richard L Robbins**        |   |   |                                            |
| /s/ George A. Schapiro       |   |   | Director                                        |
| **George A. Schapiro**       |   |   |                                            |
| /s/ C. Barry Wicker          |   |   | Director                                        |
| **C.          Barry Wicker** |   |   |                                            |
| /s/ William Craig            |   |   | Chief Financial and Accounting Officer          |
| **William Craig**            |   |   |                                            |

 

----
FTC Form 232 (rev 7/11)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20580

CASE NAME FILE/DOCKET NUMBER

Pursuant to Section 4.1 of the Commission’s Rules of Practice, I (we) am (are) entering in the above 

proceeding the appearance of

□ counsel supporting the complaint (Complete Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for the respondent (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

□ counsel or representative for a third party (Complete Items 1, 2, 4, and 5 below)

1. COUNSEL OR REPRESENTATIVE 2. RESPONDENT(S) OR THIRD PARTY(IES)

Include the name, address, email address, and telephone 

number of each counsel or representative entering an 

appearance in the above proceeding,

Include the address and telephone numbers of all persons, 

partnerships, corporations, or associations on whose behalf 

this Notice of Appearance is being filed.

3. ASSOCIATE/ASSISTANT DIRECTOR

4. SIGNATURE OF SENIOR COUNSEL 5. DATE SIGNED

Return this form to: Federal Trade Commission

Room H-113

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20580

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

McWANE, INC., et.al.

Jonathan Hafen (Attorney)

Laura Kennedy (Attorney)

Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, P.C.

185 South State Street, Suite 800

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Phone: 801-532-7840

Fax Number: 801-532-7750

(Jonathan Hafen) D09351 7/31/2012

 The Distribution Group

Parr Brown Gee & Loveless, P.C.

185 South State Street, Suite 800

Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Phone: 801-532-7840

Fax Number: 801-532-7750

07 31 2012
<PAGE>

                         MACKINAC FINANCIAL CORPORATION

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PERSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, 18 U.S.C Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2006, (the "Form 10-Q") of Mackinac
Financial Corporation (the "Issuer").

     I, Eliot R. Stark, Executive Vice President of the Issuer, certify that:

     (1)  The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
          Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
          or 78o(d)); and

     (2)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of
          the Issuer.


Eliot R. Stark
-------------------------------------
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
August 11, 2006
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

Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Adept
Technology,  Inc. (the  "Company"),  for purposes of 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on
his knowledge:

      o     the Annual  Report of the  Company on Form 10-K for the fiscal  year
            ended June 30, 2003 fully complies with the  requirements of Section
            13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      o     the  information  contained in such report fairly  presents,  in all
            material respects,  the financial condition and results of operation
            of the Company.

Dated: September 29, 2003


/s/ Brian R. Carlisle
---------------------
Brian R. Carlisle
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer of
Adept Technology, Inc.


/s/ Michael W. Overby
---------------------
Michael W. Overby
Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer of
Adept Technology, Inc.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Edith Ramirez, Chairwoman 

 Julie Brill 

 Maureen K. Ohlhausen 

 Joshua D. Wright 

In the Matter of 

ARDAGH GROUP, S.A. 

 a public limited liability company, 

SAINT-GOBAIN CONTAINERS, INC. 

 a corporation, 

and 

COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN, 

 a corporation. 

 

         DOCKET NO. 9356 

 

 

ORDER WITHDRAWING MATTER FROM ADJUDICATION 

FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSIDERING A CONSENT PROPOSAL 

 

 Complaint Counsel and Respondents, having jointly moved that this matter be withdrawn 

from adjudication because there is a reasonable possibility of a settlement, and the Commission 

having been satisfied that there is a likelihood of settlement of this matter in its entirety; 

IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 3.25(c) of the Commission Rules of Practice, 

16 C.F.R. § 3.25(c), that this matter in its entirety be withdrawn from adjudication and that all 

proceedings before the Administrative Law Judge are hereby stayed until April 16, 2014, 

pending a determination by the Commission with respect to the Consent Proposal; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 3.25(b) of the Commission Rules of 

Practice, that the Consent Proposal shall not be placed on the public record unless and until it is 

accepted by the Commission. 

By the Commission. 

 Donald S. Clark 

 Secretary 

Issued: March 17, 2014
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7802 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7802

    To require the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and any 
  affiliates to return amounts received under the paycheck protection 
                    program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2020

  Mrs. Lesko (for herself, Mr. Flores, Mr. Norman, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. 
Duncan, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Banks, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Babin, Mr. 
Roy, Mr. Joyce of Pennsylvania, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mr. Arrington, Mr. 
  Gosar, Mr. Massie, Mr. Budd, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Kustoff of 
  Tennessee, Mr. Spano, Mr. Baird, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Cline, Mr. 
Mooney of West Virginia, Mr. Wright, Mr. Rogers of Alabama, Mr. Latta, 
  Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Guest, Mr. Williams, Mr. Bishop of 
   North Carolina, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Murphy of North Carolina, Mr. 
Fulcher, Mrs. Miller, Mr. Collins of Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Green of 
 Tennessee, Mr. Johnson of Louisiana, and Mr. Fortenberry) introduced 
   the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Small 
                                Business

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and any 
  affiliates to return amounts received under the paycheck protection 
                    program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. RETURN OF PAYCHECK PROTECTION PROGRAM AMOUNTS.

    Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act 
and upon request by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Planned 
Parenthood Federation of America (and any affiliates) shall return any 
amounts received from a covered loan made under section 7(a)(36) of the 
Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636(a)(36)).
                                 <all>
```
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 21-0023
IN THE MATTER OF: 

# D MAY 1 8 2021 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court Fitatt. of Montana H.R., ORDER

A Youth in Need ofCare.
Counsel for the appellant mother of H.R. filed a motion and brief asking to be allowed to withdraw from this appeal on grounds that counselhas been unable to find any nonfrivolous issues to raise on appeal, pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA,and Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967). The mother was granted time to file a response,butno response wasfiled. The Court has now independently examined the record pursuant to § 46-8-103(2), MCA,and Anders. We conclude there are no arguments with potential legal merit that could beraised in the mother's appeal in this case. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Orderto all counsel ofrecord and to the appellant mother personally. DATED this Sf ay ofMay,2021. ChiefJustice 05/18/2021
Case Number: DA 21-0023Justices

2