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

<ARTICLE>                     9
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                                       <C>
 <PERIOD-TYPE>                                   6-MOS
 <FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
 <PERIOD-END>                              JUN-30-1998
 <CASH>                                          8,733
 <INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            383
 <FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                7,079
 <TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
 <INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    36,495
 <INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         13,801
 <INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           13,922
 <LOANS>                                       147,640
 <ALLOWANCE>                                     1,966
 <TOTAL-ASSETS>                                218,368
 <DEPOSITS>                                    187,106
 <SHORT-TERM>                                    3,619
 <LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             1,717
 <LONG-TERM>                                     6,000
 <PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
 <PREFERRED>                                         0
 <COMMON>                                        1,805
 <OTHER-SE>                                     18,121
 <TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                218,368
 <INTEREST-LOAN>                                 6,883
 <INTEREST-INVEST>                               1,442
 <INTEREST-OTHER>                                  109
 <INTEREST-TOTAL>                                8,434
 <INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              4,072
 <INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              4,338
 <INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           4,096
 <LOAN-LOSSES>                                     150
 <SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 36
 <EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 2,997
 <INCOME-PRETAX>                                 1,481
 <INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      1,481
 <EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
 <CHANGES>                                           0
 <NET-INCOME>                                    1,028
 <EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.16
 <EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.16
 <YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   4.06
 <LOANS-NON>                                     1,111
 <LOANS-PAST>                                        0
 <LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
 <LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 2,519
 <ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                1,845
 <CHARGE-OFFS>                                      31
 <RECOVERIES>                                        2
 <ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               1,966
 <ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            1,966
 <ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
 <ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Form 10-Q Issuer
  (i)
    
    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(ii)
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the
dates and for the periods indicated in the Form 10-Q.
 /s/ Larry L. Enterline
    
    
    
    /s/ Amy BobbittLarry L. Enterline
    
    
    
    Amy BobbittChief Executive Officer
    
    
    
    Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting OfficerAugust 6, 2008
    
    
    
    August 6, 2008
#### Birdie TODT, Appellant, v. William P. TODT, Appellee.

No. 71-295.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 17, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Martin County; D. C. Smith, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION 302 OF THE**
 **SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
 
 
 I, Wayne F. Irmiter, certify that:
 
 
 1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Salton Sea Funding Corporation;2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):a)
All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting. 
 Date:  November 12, 2004
 
 /s/ Wayne F. Irmiter
 Wayne F. Irmiter
 Vice President and Controller
 (chief accounting officer)
#### Daniel HALL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-697.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 30, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Arnetta Moses WESTON et al. v. KELLY LABOR DIVISION, INC., et al.

No. 5185.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

April 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied May 1, 1973.

Writ Refused June 28, 1973.

Robert A. Keily and Philip S. Brooks, New Orleans, for plaintiffs-appellants.

*332Christovich & Kearney, Lawrence J. Ernst, New Orleans, for defendants-appel-lees.

Before SAMUEL, LEMMON and BOU-TALL, JJ.

LEMMON, Judge.

On our own motion this court has raised the issue of dismissing the appeal as untimely.

After the trial on the merits, the district court took the case under advisement and subsequently rendered judgment on Wednesday, June 10, 1970. According to a certificate in the record, a copy of the judgment was mailed on the next day to counsel for all parties. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on June 17, 1970. The motion was denied on November 15, 1971, and appellant thereafter filed a petition for a devolutive appeal on December 23, 1971.

C.C.P. art. 1974 provides that the delay of three days for applying for a new trial commences to run on the day after the clerk has mailed the notice of judgment required by art. 1913. While counsel could not state with certainty the date on which he received the certified copy of the judgment (which in our opinion constitutes the required notice of judgment), he concedes that he received it prior to applying for a new trial on June 17.

Counsel received the certified copy of the judgment well within the delay for applying for a devolutive appeal. The judgment on its face indicated that it was rendered on June 10, 1970. It was therefore incumbent upon counsel to determine that his application for a new trial was timely filed by determining the date of mailing from the record. When he filed a motion for a new trial without first ascertaining that it was timely, he did so at his own peril.

When no application for a new trial was timely made, the time for applying for a devolutive appeal began to run. C.C.P. art. 2087. Thereafter, when 90 days elapsed after the expiration of the delay for applying for a new trial, the judgment of the trial court became final and definitive. C.C. art. 3556(31); C.C.P. art. 1842.

The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------

         We have  issued our  report  dated  March 31,  2008,  accompanying  the
consolidated   financial   statements  and   management's   assessment  for  the
effectiveness  of internal  control  over  financial  reporting  included in the
Annual Report of Berkshire  Bancorp Inc. and  subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the
year  ended  December  31,  2007.  We hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by
reference of said report in the Registration Statement of Berkshire Bancorp Inc.
on  Forms  S-8  (File  No.  333-41708,  effective  July  19,  2000  and File No.
333-22287, effective February 25, 1997).


/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

New York, New York
March 31, 2008
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Fourth Quarter 1998 and 1997




                                    Fourth     Fourth     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     1998       1997     1998 rate  difference

United States.....................      66.4       65.7        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      64.4       63.7        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      50.3       49.7        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      73.3       72.6        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      74.8       73.8        0.4         0.5

 Northeast........................      62.0       62.7        0.5         0.6
 Midwest..........................      71.5       70.4        0.4         0.5
 South............................      69.0       67.8        0.3         0.4
 West.............................      60.4       59.8        0.4         0.5
#### Alvin PARRISH, et al., Appellants, v. Bessie Pearl ROGERS, Appellee.

No. 71-116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 9, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; Richard H. Cooper, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### TRUNKLINE GAS COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ausbon ROUGEAU et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1927.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Third Circuit.

Feb. 15, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 21, 1967.

Writ Refused May 19, 1967.

*63Oliver, Digby & Fudickar, by Fred Fud-ickar, Jr., Monroe, Gist, Methvin & Trim-ble, by H. B. Gist, Jr., Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.

Polk, Foote & Hunter, by William P. Polk, Alexandria, for defendants-appellees.

Before TATE, SAVOY, and HOOD, JJ.

TATE, Judge.

This expropriation suit was consolidated for trial and appeal with Trunkline Gas Company v. Verzwyfelt, 196 So.2d 58, rendered this date. The two suits concern expropriations for the same pipeline over adjacent tracts of land. With the exception to be noted, it is conceded that the issues in the two suits are almost identical.

The only different appellate question arises from the circumstance that in the present case the trial court awarded $522 excessive severance damage through inadvertent miscomputation. The court did not notice its error until it was divested of jurisdiction to correct it by the perfection of the appeal. The defendants-appellees do not deny the error in computation.

Accordingly, we will reduce the total award to the defendant landowners by the net sum of Five Hundred Twenty-Two ($522.00) Dollars; as thus reduced, we will affirm the trial court judgment in all other respects, for the reasons stated in the cited companion appeal. The costs of this appeal are to be paid by Trunkline, the plaintiff-appellant.

Amended and affirmed.

On Application for Rehearing.

En Banc. Rehearing denied.

CULPEPPER, J., recused.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Corella, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 550]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered March 26, 1999, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*429We reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court erred in permitting testimony concerning a prior uncharged crime. Since the defendant claimed that he acted in self-defense, the issue of his motive was significant. Thus, while the proffered evidence was potentially prejudicial to the defendant’s case, it was highly probative in showing that the stabbing was intentional (see, *People v Hawker,*215 AD2d 499; *People v Wheeler,*257 AD2d 673). Further, any prejudice was minimized by the trial court’s instruction to the jury that the evidence was to be considered only on the issues of whether the defendant was the initial aggressor, and whether he was the first to use deadly force *(see, People v Engler,*150 AD2d 827).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, EL Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.
ERGE-RUNEAU OF THE CENSUS 735 2 eienicons emer He sia
"FOURTEENTH CENSUS OF: THE-UNITED/STATES: 1920--POPULATION — oiemer mea aay

ug oF nconrontan nace brace i or ey. Leh OST
EvinenareD ny ne on rate ZB pat or-gleamasey te é

eet SEE NESSSERSY-Me fetcenveene
a Oka Daa Changt Paalek
3 aa |For Posek
3 - z ESE
a] St Fig tek =
| Chiles Faso Fo £4
3| fale oe ram peareram
og als-laals Be yeees | Ee | |ue
= 3 apse Zaad cam
= aE alae [or els areas u zz
e sl fleet = < iat =
¥ | are | [=|
5 a pearl =
fi cane Fe 3
Bead. oI aca t fo
a4 ican cm ae
- rican mae 52
Fhe Tae : ee a
EAAEZE Par ees Howe fort Sn

aintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

7 (www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here. jn) 4
| Ie,
a y ss Loa _ , . = ied
oak een 5: : t ea ras cg alu
= Tie z
‘| zl .
‘ se
y mre
Aran
3 Lae i
ql Ae
5 Ae
ft
4 ie
BS Z
7 eee
a hel = seca
a ae
; ; =
= cc
Table B-1.  Standard Errors of Vacancy Rates by Area:  2000
                   (Range of 68 chances out of 100)



    Rental                       Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                  for   error on year diff-   error on
                                 year       rate     erence difference1

United States..............       8.0        0.1       -0.1        0.2
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       7.7        0.1       -0.1        0.2
    In central cities......       8.2        0.2       -0.2        0.2
    Not in central cities..       7.2        0.2        (z)        0.2
  Outside Metropolitan Area       9.5        0.3       -0.2        0.4
  Northeast................       5.6        0.2       -0.7        0.3
  Midwest..................       8.8        0.3        0.2        0.4
  South....................      10.5        0.2        0.2        0.3
  West.....................       5.8        0.2       -0.5        0.3

                                   For-rent as a percent of all housing units

United States..............       2.5        (z)       -0.1        0.1
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       2.6        (z)       -0.1        0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.1        0.1        (z)        0.1
  Northeast................       2.0        0.1       -0.3        0.1
  Midwest..................       2.4        0.1        (z)        0.1
  South....................       3.1        0.1        (z)        0.1
  West.....................       2.1        0.1       -0.2        0.1


     Homeowner
                                 Rate   Standard   Year-to-   Standard
                                  for   error on year diff-   error on
                                 year       rate     erence difference1

United States..............       1.6        (z)       -0.1                  (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       1.4        (z)       -0.1        0.1
    In central cities......       1.9        0.1        (z)        0.1
    Not in central cities..       1.3        (z)       -0.2        0.1
  Outside Metropolitan Area       2.1        0.1        (z)        0.1
  Northeast................       1.2        0.1       -0.2        0.1
  Midwest..................       1.3        0.1        0.1        0.1
  South....................       1.9        0.1       -0.1        0.1
  West.....................       1.5        0.1       -0.2        0.1


                                   For-sale-only as a percent of all housing units

United States..............       1.0        (z)        (z)        (z)
  Inside Metropolitan Areas       0.9        (z)        (z)        (z)
  Outside Metropolitan Area       1.3        0.1        (z)        0.1
  Northeast................       0.7        (z)       -0.1        0.1
  Midwest..................       0.9        (z)        0.1        0.1
  South....................       1.2        (z)        (z)        0.1
  West.....................       0.9        (z)       -0.1        0.1

  Z less than 0.05 percent.
  1Difference between 2000 rates and 1999 rates.
#### NEELY LUMBER CO., Inc., et al. v. C. E. KLUMB LUMBER CO., Inc.

No. 46179.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 3, 1971.

Hewes, Gillespie & Lenoir, Gulfport, for appellants.

White & Morse, Gulfport, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  Second Quarter 1997 and 1996


                                      Second     Second     Standard    Standard
Area                                 quarter    quarter     error on    error on
                                        1997       1996     1997 rate  difference

United States.....................      65.7       65.4        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      63.8       63.6        0.2         0.3
   In central cities..............      49.9       50.0        0.3         0.5
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      72.6       72.4        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      73.5       72.7        0.4         0.5

 Northeast........................      62.4       62.3        0.4         0.6
 Midwest..........................      70.3       70.5        0.4         0.5
 South............................      68.1       67.2        0.3         0.4
 West.............................      59.9       59.8        0.4         0.5
    
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
#### Clem H. SAMMONS, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Irving KIPNIS and Lena Kipnis, his wife; Irving Biers and Shirley Biers, his wife, Appellees.

No. 71-104.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 17, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1472 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1472

To create a division within the Congressional Budget Office that would 
                      perform regulatory analysis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             August 1, 2013

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Ms. Collins) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To create a division within the Congressional Budget Office that would 
                      perform regulatory analysis.

    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 ``Strengthening Congressional 
Oversight of Regulatory actions for Efficiency''.

SEC. 2. REGULATORY ANALYSIS BY CBO.

    Title II of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 is amended by 
inserting at the end the following:

                     ``regulatory analysis division

    ``Sec. 204.  (a) In General.--The Director shall establish and 
maintain a separate Regulatory Analysis Division (referred to in this 
section as the `division') within the Office that shall be responsible 
for assessing the impact of Federal rules and regulations.
    ``(b) Analysis.--The responsibilities of the division shall 
include--
            ``(1) an analysis, during the public comment period upon 
        the proposal of a rule, of the prospective economic impact of 
        economically significant rules having an annual effect on the 
        economy of $100,000,000 or more or adversely affect in a 
        material way the economy, a sector of the economy, 
        productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health 
        or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
        communities; and
            ``(2) analysis of economically significant regulations that 
        have been in effect for 5 years, including an analysis of costs 
        and benefits to determine if the regulation is meeting the 
        stated goals the regulation was intended to provide.
    ``(c) Authorization for Appropriation.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as are necessary for the division to carry out 
its duties.''.
                                 <all>
```