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

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       4,968,544
<RECEIVABLES>                               79,944,271
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                        2,771,244
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                          7,373,234
<PP&E>                                       3,043,104
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             102,744,562
<SHORT-TERM>                                21,600,000
<PAYABLES>                                  74,483,671
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                         17,546,500
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             850,904
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       289,156
<OTHER-SE>                                  30,330,314
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               102,744,562
<TRADING-REVENUE>                            1,323,273
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         1,645,673
<COMMISSIONS>                               10,628,682
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                1,916,764
<FEE-REVENUE>                                1,196,006
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             562,649
<COMPENSATION>                               9,540,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,639,025
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,044,025
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,044,025
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40
        

</TABLE>
#### Terry Arnold LYKINS and Marvin Lee Holton, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-222.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 1, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND THE RELATED
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS 
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,438
<SECURITIES>                                     2,718
<RECEIVABLES>                                  132,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     17,696
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               191,866
<PP&E>                                          38,345
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 263,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           72,113
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           234
<OTHER-SE>                                     171,585
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   163,900
<SALES>                                        180,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,239
<CGS>                                          140,493
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  140,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                33,168
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  8,720
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,570
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,570
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .62
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

June 2, 2005

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-15259

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 03-00268-CR-BE-S 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

OLIVER COLEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Alabama

_________________________

(June 2, 2005)

Before TJOFLAT, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit

PER CURIAM:

In this appeal, Oliver Coleman seeks the vacation of his conviction of

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute Dilaudid pills, in
 In his reply brief, Coleman challenges his sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 1

___, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004). He did raise the Blakely issue in a pro se filing,

which, in effect, supplemented his attorney’s initial brief. This court’s Clerk’s Office, however,

refused to accept Coleman’s pro se supplemental filing because he was represented by counsel. In

sum, Coleman failed to present his Blakely challenge in his initial brief, and it has been abandoned.

See United States v. Dockery, 401 F.3d 1261, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2005) (holding that appellant

abandoned his Booker claim on appeal by not raising a timely constitutional challenge to his

sentence in his initial brief). 

2

violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and a new trial. He is entitled to a new trial, he 1

contends, because the district court erroneously admitted into evidence a transcript

of a taped phone conversation that included a synopsis prepared by the

Government identifying him as the supplier of the drugs. Because Coleman failed

to object to the introduction of the transcript, we review its presence before the

jury only for plain error. See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32, 113

S.Ct. 1770, 1776, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). 

We may vacate a conviction for plain error if (1) an error occurred, that (2) 

was plain, (3) affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and (4) “seriously affects

the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” Id. at 732-36,

113 S.Ct. at 1777-79. Coleman points us to no rule of law that specifically

precludes the admission into evidence of a transcript prefaced by an arguably

prejudicial government-prepared synopsis. In his brief, Coleman cites no

precedent indicating that the introduction of the transcript into evidence

constituted error. It follows, then, that the admission of the transcript, if
3

erroneous, was not plainly erroneous. Finally, Coleman fails to show us how this

evidence affected his substantial rights. 

AFFIRMED.
#### AEROVIAS SUD AMERICANA, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. SUNBEAM VENEZUELA, S.A., a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-566.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Aug. 6, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
EXHIBIT 11  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
For the Periods Ended September 30,
(Dollars in thousands except per share data)



                                     Third Quarter             Nine Months
                                   1996        1995          1996        1995
<S>                             <C>         <C>           <C>         <C>
Net income......................$  38,217   $  34,197     $ 116,115   $ 100,733

Preferred dividends.............       --           7             6          70

Income available to common
  shareholders..................$  38,217   $  34,190     $ 116,109   $ 100,663




Weighted average of common
 stock equivalents..............   29,372      30,052        29,596      30,031

Weighted average of preferred
  stock convertible to common
  stock equivalents.............       --          59             9          97

Weighted average of fully
 diluted common stock
 equivalents....................   29,372      30,111        29,605      30,128


Primary earnings per share
  (income available to common
  shareholders divided by weighted
  average of common stock
  equivalents)..................$    1.30   $    1.14     $    3.92   $    3.35


Fully diluted earnings per share
  (net income divided by weighted
  average of fully diluted
  common stock equivalents).....$    1.30   $    1.14     $    3.92   $    3.34



Note:  The effect of stock options outstanding are not dilutive to earnings 
       per share as defined in APB 15 and therefore are not included with
       the above calculations.

</TABLE>
#### Donald Erwin BIESENDORFER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40918.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 30, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 147.

CARLTON, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Mark Palmateer, Appellant.

[736, NYS2d 191]

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered March 6, 2000, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of driving while intoxicated and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree.

The sole issue raised by counsel for defendant is that defendant’s concurrent prison terms of 2Vs to 7 years for driving while intoxicated and lVs to 4 years for aggravated unlicensed operation constitute harsh and excessive sentences. We disagree. Defendant has a lengthy history of alcohol-related driving offenses and has been the beneficiary of a substantial measure of judicial leniency on these prior occasions. In fact, only eight days prior to this arrest, he was placed on probation in Schoharie County following his conviction on identical charges.' Under these circumstances, we find no abuse of County Court’s sentencing discretion *(see, People v Lancaster,*272 AD2d 719).

*729Of the eight issues raised by defendant in his pro se letter, six concern matters which are dehors the record and are unpreserved by an appropriate CPL 440.10 motion (see, *e.g., People v Johnson,*288 AD2d 501), one is belied by the record, and the other is meritless. Moreover, neither the brief nor his pro se letter demonstrates the existence of any extraordinary circumstance that would warrant the exercise of our authority to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Tommy BARBER v. Gordon E. CAUSEY, Judge, 21st Judicial District Court.

No. 60594.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1977.

In re: Tommy Barber applying for writ of mandamus.

Writ denied. The Clerk of Court is instructed to transmit to relator a copy of minutes of the trial court denying habeas corpus.
O v e r v i e w F e a t u r

e s N o F l y Z o n e s S p e c s V i d e o s D o w n l o a d s F A Q W i k i

A i r c r a f t

G i m b a l

C a m e r a

R e m o t e C o n t r o l S u p p o r t e d B a t t e r y D J I 5 2 0 0 m A h L i P o B a t t e r y

W e i g h t ( B a t t e r

y & P r o p e l l e r s I n c l u d e d ) 1 2 4 2 g H o v e r A c c u r a c y ( R e a d y T o F l y ) V e r t i c a l : 0

. 8 m ; H o r i z o n t a l : 2

. 5 m M a x Y a w A n g u l a r V e l o c i t y 2 0 0 ° / s M a x T i l t a b l e A n g l e 3 5 ° M a x A s c e n t / D e s c e n t S p e e d A s c e n t : 6 m / s ; D e s c e n t : 2 m / s M a x F l i g h t S p e e d 1 5 m / s ( N o t R e c o m m e n d e d ) D i a g o n a l M o t o r ­ M o t o r D i s t a n c e 3 5 0 m m
W o r k i n g C u r r e n t S t a t i c : 7 5 0 m A ; D y n a m i c : 9 0 0 m A C o n t r o l A c c u r a c y
± 0

. 0 3 ° C o n t r o l l a b l e R a n g e P i t c h : ­ 9 0 °

- 0 ° M a x i m u m A n g u l a r S p e e d P i t c h : 9 0 ° / s
O p e r a t i n g E n v i r o n m e n t T e m p e r a t u r e 0 °C

­ 4 0 °C S e n s o r S i z e 1 / 2

. 3 " E f f e c t i v e P i x e l s 1 4 M e g a p i x e l s R e s o l u t i o n 4 3 8 4 × 3 2 8 8 H D R e c o r d i n g 1 0 8 0 p 3 0 & 7 2 0 p R e c o r d i n g F O V 1 1 0 ° / 8 5 °
O p e r a t i n g F r e q u e n c y 5

. 7 2 8 G H z - 5

. 8 5 G H z C o m m u n i c a t i o n D i s t a n c e ( O p e n A r e a ) C E C o m p l i a n c e : 4 0 0 m ; F C C C o m p l i a n c e : 8 0 0 m R e c e i v e r S e n s i t i v i t y ( 1 % P E R )

­ 9 3 d B m T r a n s m i t t e r P o w e r C E C o m p l i a n c e : 2 5 m W ; F C C C o m p l i a n c e : 1 0 0 m W W o r k i n g V o l t a g eR a n g e E x t e n d e r

D J I V I S I O N A p p 1 2 0 m A @ 3

. 7 V B u i l t ­ I n L i P o B a t t e r y W o r k i n g C u r r e n t / C a p a c i t y 3

. 7 V , 2 0 0 0 m A h

O p e r a t i n g F r e q u e n c y 2 4 1 2

­ 2 4 6 2 M H z C o m m u n i c a t i o n D i s t a n c e ( O p e n A r e a ) 5 0 0

­ 7 0 0 m T r a n s m i t t e r P o w e r 2 0 d B m P o w e r C o n s u m p t i o n 2 W
S y s t e m R e q u i r e m e n t O f M o b i l e D e v i c e i O S v e r s i o n 6

. 1 o r a b o v e / A n d r o i d s y s t e m v e r s i o n 4

. 0 o r a b o v e M o b i l e D e v i c e S u p p o r t i O S r e c o m m e n d e d : i P h o n e 4 s , i P h o n e 5 , i P h o n e 5 s , i P h o n e 6 , i P h o n e 6 P l u s , i P o d t o u c h 5 ( a v a i l a b l e b u t n o t r e c o m m e n d e d : i P a d 3 , i P a d 4 , i P a d m i n i ) A n d r o i d r e c o m m e n d e d : S a m s u n g G a l a x y S 3 , S 4 , N o t e 2 , N o t e 3 o r p h o n e s o f s i m i l a r c o n f i g u r a t i o n
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Daniel R. HOLMES.

No. 60636.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1978.

*1092James E. Shields, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Roy F. Blondeau, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Research and Appeals Division, Me-tairie, for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Daniel Holmes was charged by bill of information with armed robbery, a violation of La.R.S. 14:64. After trial by jury he was found guilty as charged and subsequently sentenced to serve twenty years at hard labor.

We have reviewed each of defendant’s twenty-three assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

*Decree*

Accordingly, defendant’s conviction and sentence are affirmed.

DENNIS, J., dissents.

TATE, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.

TATE, Justice,

dissenting.

I respectfully dissent on the basis of Assignments of Error Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 17, and 19. These assignments represent questions and arguments by the prosecutor improperly summarizing evidentiary facts in the prosecutor’s files and not in evidence, and improperly commenting upon matters not in evidence. The extreme prejudice caused the accused by this repeated prose-cutorial excess was not cured by the court’s admonition to the jury for it to disregard (some of) the improprieties. The accused was denied a fair trial. The conviction should be reversed, and the case remanded for a new trial in accordance with the law.
EXHIBIT 11
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
For the Periods Ended March 31
(Amounts in thousands, except per share data)

                                        First Quarter 
                                       1998       1997
-------------------------------------------------------
Net income........................   $59,344    $45,273 
Dividends on preferred stock......        --         --
-------------------------------------------------------
Net income available to common
  shareholders....................   $59,344    $45,273
-------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average shares:
Common shares.....................    91,834     86,753
Convertible preferred shares......        --         --
Stock awards......................        60         42
Stock options.....................     2,813      2,521
-------------------------------------------------------
Weighted average diluted common
 shares...........................    94,707     89,316 
-------------------------------------------------------
Basic earnings per share..........   $  0.65    $  0.52
  (net income available to common
  shareholders divided by weighted
  average of common shares)
-------------------------------------------------------
Diluted earnings per share........   $  0.63    $  0.51
  (net income divided by weighted
  average diluted common shares)
-------------------------------------------------------
Earnings per share and weighted average share amounts 
have been restated for adoption of SFAS No. 128.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          99,698
<SECURITIES>                                     2,423
<RECEIVABLES>                                   96,025
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,243
<INVENTORY>                                     45,193
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               259,738
<PP&E>                                          35,553
<DEPRECIATION>                                  22,413
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 369,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          148,915
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           20,553
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           157
<OTHER-SE>                                     190,367
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   369,148
<SALES>                                        988,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               988,844
<CGS>                                          816,507
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  816,507
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,578
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,115
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 19,536
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             11,136
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,136
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .70
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1316]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-503]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[Order No. 861]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Subzone 183A; Dell Computer 
Corporation, Austin, Texas

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, an application from the Foreign Trade Zone of Central 
Texas, Inc., grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 183, for authority to expand 
Foreign-Trade Subzone 183A at the Dell Computer Corporation plant in 
Austin, Texas, was filed by the Board on June 19, 1996 (FTZ Docket 53-
96, 61 FR 33899, 7/1/96); and,
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in Federal 
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand Subzone 183A is approved, subject to the 
Act and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 23rd day of December 1996.
Jeffrey P. Bialo,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-503 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 99.2

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of The First Republic
Corporation of America (the "Company") for the quarter ended December 31, 2002
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Harry
Bergman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

        (3) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



By:      /s/ Harry Bergman
       ------------------------
Name:   Harry Bergman
Chief Financial and Chief Accounting Officer
February 18, 2003
Exhibit 32.1
                                                                    ------------


                           SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION*
     (Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer)

      Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.ss.  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officers of WindsorTech, Inc. hereby
certify, to such officers' knowledge, that:

      (1) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of WindsorTech,  Inc.
(the  "Company")  for the  period  ended  March 31,  2004 (the  "Report")  fully
complies with the with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),  as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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: May 13,2004                       /s/ Marc Sherman
      -----------                       -------------------------
                                        Marc Sherman
                                        Chairman of the Board and
                                        Chief Executive Officer

                                        /s/ Edward L. Cummings
                                        -------------------------
                                        Edward L. Cummings
                                        Chief Financial Officer


------------------
* The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.