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

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S SEPTEMBER 30, 1998, FORM 10-K AND THRIFT FINANCIAL REPORT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          39,253
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 2,071
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    334,497
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,028,383
<ALLOWANCE>                                     16,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,503,268
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,093,423
<SHORT-TERM>                                   158,821
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             16,505
<LONG-TERM>                                    112,315
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,574
<OTHER-SE>                                     108,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,503,268
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 93,364
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               20,572
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               113,936
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              46,589
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              60,303
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           53,633
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    5,671
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 261
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 42,713
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,129
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      15,457
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,457
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.14
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.58
<LOANS-NON>                                      8,736
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                14,389
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    5,982
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,316
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               16,384
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            12,445
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          3,939
        

</TABLE>
1

Memo 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

From: Joseph McDonald 

CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 

Re: Cruff et al 2010 citation 

A hard copy of the following citation: 

Cruff, L., Kaiser, M., Krause, S., Harris, R., Krueger, U., Williams, M., 2010, “EBDI® - Application of a 

Fully Flexible High Bmep Downsized Spark Ignited Engine.” SAE Technical Paper Series No. 2010-01-

0587. 

is available within EPA’s Docket Center. 

This document has been copyrighted and is not available in the electronic docket. Parties that wish to 

view a hard copy of this document can do so at the at the EPA Docket Center: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
EXHIBIT 99(2)

                            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 Annual Report of Congoleum Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Howard N. Feist
III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge:

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

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


April 15, 2003

/s/ Howard N. Feist III
-------------------------
Howard N. Feist III
Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation
and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of ss.
18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### Pat DENMARK v. Mary Alice MILLER.

No. 50257.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 31, 1978.

W. S. Murphy, Lucedale, for appellant.

William T. Bailey, Sr., Lucedale, for ap-pellee.

Before SMITH, P. J., SUGG and BROOM, JJ., and JOHN C. LOVE, Jr., Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Philadelphia District Attorney’s :

Office, :

Appellant :

: No. 1952 C.D. 2016

v. :

: Gregory Stover :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 8 th day o f December

, 201 7 , it is ORDERED that the

above

- captioned opinion filed September 1 2 , 201 7 , shall be designated OPINION

rather than MEMORANDUM OPINION, and it shall be reported.

________________________________ PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
Hogan Lovells US LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in the District of Columbia. Hogan Lovells refers to the in ternational legal practice comprising Hogan Lovells US LLP, Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells Worldwide Group (a Swiss Verein), and their affiliated businesses with o ffices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Boulder Brussels Caracas Chicago Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankf urt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Phila delphia Prague Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Warsaw Washin gton DC Associated offices: Budapest Jeddah Riyadh Zagre b Hogan Lovells US LLP Columbia Square 555 Thirteenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004

T +1 202 637 5600

F +1 202 637 5910 www.hoganlovells.com

June 23, 2010

BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION

Docket DOT-OST-1998-3305 Docket Operations Facility U.S. Department of Transportation West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: 14 C.F.R. Part 243 – Passenger Manifest Information – Submission of Summary for Acropolis Aviation Limited

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 243.13, Acropolis Aviation Limi ted (“Acropolis Aviation”) hereby submits a statement summarizing how Acropolis Aviation will collect the passenger manifest information required by 14 C.F.R. Part 243, and ho w it will transmit the informati on to the Department of State in the event of an aviation disaster with respect to a covered flight segment. An unredacted version of the attached summary including contac t information for representative s of Acropolis Aviation who will be available any time a covered flight segment is operated will be provided to the appropriate Department officials on a confident ial basis under separate cover.

Please feel free to contact me if you have questions concerning Ac ropolis Aviation’s operations or the procedures described in the enclosed summary.

Sincerely,

Sheryl R. Israel

Counsel sheryl.israel@hoganlovells.com

D +1 202 637 8898

Counsel for Acropolis Aviation Limited

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                          10,205
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   50,233
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     94,362
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               175,778
<PP&E>                                       1,261,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                 609,149
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 911,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          127,689
<BONDS>                                        579,626
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        45,659
<OTHER-SE>                                    (44,546)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   911,048
<SALES>                                        680,381
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               680,381
<CGS>                                          631,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  674,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,072
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (42,361)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (15,250)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,782
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (27,111)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### J. C. SMITH, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-135.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 10, 1970.

J. C. Smith, Jr., in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

By this appeal appellant challenges the judgment of conviction of the offense of breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony.

Appellant was defended in the trial court by the Public Defender who also initiated this appeal. The Public Defender has heretofore filed a brief in this cause which in effect states that he can find no assignable error in the trial proceedings. At appellant’s request the Public Defender was discharged, and appellant was concurrently afforded an opportunity to file a brief in his own proper person, which he has now filed.

We have reviewed the full record in this cause and observe that the evidence in this cause overwhelmingly supports the verdict and judgment, and we concur with the representation of the Public Defender that no justiciable assignment of error could be made as to the trial proceedings.

The judgment appealed is affirmed.

JOHNSON, C. J., and RAWLS and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                             216
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (2,559)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,907
<PP&E>                                          33,470
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (10,296)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 717,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           66,350
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           331
<OTHER-SE>                                     360,911
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   717,765
<SALES>                                        464,465
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               464,465
<CGS>                                          332,647
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  419,528
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,373
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,126
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 26,438
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,104
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             15,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    15,334
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.49


</TABLE>
#### William Daniel LOWDERMILK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-1206.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 27, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Seminole County ; Dominick Salfi, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1726 

To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

Mr. RUBIO (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. LEE, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. PAUL, Mr. VITTER, Mrs. FISCHER, and Mr. HOEVEN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To prevent a taxpayer bailout of health insurance issuers. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Obamacare Taxpayer 

5 Bailout Prevention Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PREVENTION OF BAILOUT OF HEALTH INSURANCE 

7 ISSUERS. 

8 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is 

9 amended by striking section 1342 (42 U.S.C. 18062). 

Æ 


PWALKER on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Leon SCHACK v. STATE.

No. 36602.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 1967.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 10, 1967.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 202 So.2d 824.
-  Freedom of Information Act      -  Submit & Check Status of FOIA Requests 
  -  FOIA Contacts & Requester Service Centers and Privacy Act Contacts 
  -  HHS FOIA Reports        -  Annual Reports 
    -  Quarterly Reports 
    -  Chief FOIA Officer Report 
    -  Open Pending FOIA Request Reports 
  -  FOIA Library / Electronic Reading Room        -  2016/2017 HHS Presidential Transition Documents 
  -  FOIA Exemptions & Exclusions 
  -  FOIA & Privacy Act Statutes & Resources        -  The Privacy Act 
    -  HHS System of Records Notices (SORNs) 
    -  HHS Computer Matching Agreements (CMAs) 
  -  FOIA FAQS 
  -  FOIA Appeals 
  -  FOIA Fees 
  -  COVID-19 Contracts 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# What information is available under the FOIA?

Federal agencies are required to disclose records upon receipt of a written request, with some exceptions. This right of access is enforceable in court. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) provides public access to all federal agency records except for those records (or portions of those records) that are protected from disclosure by any of nine exemptions or three exclusions (reasons for which an agency may withhold records from a requester).The exemptions cover:1.  Classified national defense and foreign relations information2.  Internal agency rules and practices3.  Information that is prohibited from disclosure by another law4.  Trade secrets and other confidential business information5.  Inter-agency or intra-agency communications that are protected by legal privileges6.  Information involving matters of personal privacy7.  Certain information compiled for law enforcement purposes8.  Information relating to the supervision of financial institutions9.  Geological information on wellsThe three exclusions, which are rarely used, pertain to certain sensitive law enforcement and national security matters.

Content last reviewed September 17, 2015
#### Clarence SLOAN and Ruben A. Maize, Petitioners, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-83.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
’s 8 &

mumbered inthe |

St
15,

"yt
aay Huth PEM ELE edie
Ege) 5 i by me,
f | iP: ld Wb Od fs Span}
| teen Cae eg
| i ait i f
pis 4 ] |) Devenureion
name of person ! j appal
place of abode on the fret day of Sune, 1}
|: pony was bm chin family. |||
ee Hg
ee Gk Ue
hee] 2! Hs] a as |
i Rel Ro BM ATRL Lat Hct ih 1 1 3
/ UN ai ; |
rag eereve ted ue igen ||) loy| a
! | ; | a EH eed FS]
ts fey Maar iC : El eee <_ B ca MaRS
. j EE EAT |
jen Gaara ~|7- oe} Mt ut Ue ath a ed ich cea a di st 1 (RS at 4 Wie a i 7
4
| | Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. sth |
| 8
1
it Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. tay
H 14°
& |
| persed | | lel 2 é g BY Pa ra SIE 5 i i fis
pe a oN Se EET | Lh LI :
i 7a A i a | SY pA Nad ae YE i +t peo Ue See be Oe Pe CRT BK ag 4) i
| iia | ’ ATs era
ed Lh. "see. 4A ak NW het Be OS JE by Beal 5 Lb bi
«4 | f hh Gora BERR pages a | 7
oD sar ert _4 |7 i bs 1 ee! Pee Ta ba =: Ger ‘ u ae). pe ne
| a i thi q |
Cia Ban ado cs iil 36) Pi eet ES 1S oie 1 wo ed a
ih t nitrite) Rech es ati Ga
wre ea Ha 2724 A HL | = BE ANTEC LAB) ley a"
| | BET 5 1] it | hw
tery pat Ct Wo AE LIER Eek See te WE i = ph ee £ isa pee ea
| | | ;
ae Ww (Sis OEM EY | SAM =, 2-2 eB, i=
ZAMAN hh | DZ Al [8
{I |
| }
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, the undersigned, Charles E. Johnson, the chief executive officer of Proliance International, Inc. (the ‘‘issuer’’), does hereby certify that the report on Form 10-Q accompanying this certification (the ‘‘report’’) fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

/s/ Charles E. Johnson
Charles E. Johnson
President and Chief Executive Officer
(chief executive officer)
Proliance International, Inc.

May 14, 2008

---
#### Cornell STATEN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1177.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 8, 1971.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., CHARLES CARROLL, J., and ADAMS, ALTO, Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was informed against, tried before a jury and convicted of assault with intent to commit a felony. He was sentenced thereon to confinement for a period of ten years, with credit for certain jail time served. On this appeal by the defendant it is contended the trial court erred by admitting into evidence, over objection of defendant, photographs of the defendant and other persons which had been submitted to the victim for identification purposes prior to the filing of the information, and that the evidence relating to identification of the defendant was insufficient.

The facts disclosed in the record included the following. The incident occurred when the victim, owner of a liquor store, was about to enter the store at 4:30 o’clock A.M. to prepare for the business of the day, as was his custom on certain days. As he got out of his car, which he parked across the street from the store, he was approached by two black males. One of them, who was later identified as the defendant Staten, pointed a gun at the victim, and proceeded to fire three bullets into him. As said assailant then reached for the victim’s pocket, the latter, who was armed, shot that assailant four times. The victim drove himself to a hospital, where he was treated and survived. Within an hour the said Staten appeared at the hospital for treatment of his wounds, whereupon he was arrested on suspicion of the crime, by the police who had been notified thereof and were on the alert for such a wounded man to appear for treatment at the hospital.

After Staten’s arrest, but prior to the filing of an information against him, the victim identified Staten from photographs submitted to him by the police. An in-court identification of Staten was made by the victim at the trial.

The defendant did not file a motion to suppress the identification evidence, but moved to strike such evidence at trial on the ground that no attorney for the defendant Staten had been present at the time of the identification of him by the victim from photographs. We hold that contention to be without merit, and that the ruling of the trial court relating thereto was correct. See United States v. Roth, 2 Cir. 1970, 430 F.2d 1137, 1140; United States v. Ballard, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F.2d 127.

No reversible error having been shown the judgment is affirmed.