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

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS,
STATEMENT OF COMMON SHAREHOLDERS' EQUITY AND PRIMARY AND FULLY DILUTED EARNINGS
PER SHARE OF COMMON STOCK AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CIK> 0000936340
<NAME> DTE ENERGY CO.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    8,500,667
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    551,450
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         810,375
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                     1,152,437
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,014,929
<COMMON>                                     1,951,437
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          1,492,417
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>               3,443,854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    144,405
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         3,779,334
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                  10,001
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  144,214
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    115,742
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               144,499
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>               3,232,880
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>               11,014,929
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                    3,645,400
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           222,606
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   2,808,886
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                   3,031,492
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        613,908
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (363)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 613,545
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       288,234
<NET-INCOME>                                   309,296
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                     16,015
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                        0
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                       298,949
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      275,166
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                       1,078,636
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.13
        

</TABLE>
#### John Huffman CAMPBELL v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 46714.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 20, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1972.

Gray, Montague & Jackson, R. A. Gray, III, Hattiesburg, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Karen Gilfoy, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

BRADY, Justice:

We have read the record in this cause with great care and we have meticulously reviewed the briefs of counsel. Though numerous errors are assigned, there is but one basic issue upon which the determination of this case rests and that is whether or not the court erred in not sustaining the appellant’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained by the search warrant. The affidavit for the search warrant sets forth facts sufficient to establish probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant, and the evidence obtained under the search warrant is sufficient to justify the conviction of the appellant. This determination is not in conflict with the standards announced in Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1590, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); Strode v. State, 231 So.2d 779 (Miss.1970); and O’Bean v. State, 184 So.2d 635 (Miss.1966). Therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Forrest County is affirmed.

Affirmed.

GILLESPIE, C. J., and JONES, SMITH and SUGG, JJ-, concur.
256 La. 885

#### Ben F. RAGUSA v. STATE of Louisiana, CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (Department of Public Safety, Division of State Police).

No. 50858.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 7, 1970.

In re: Ben F. Ragusa applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Louisiana Civil Service Commission. 238 So.2d 193.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the result is correct.
#### Harold FARMER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 67-736.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

March 19, 1968.

*267Engel & Pollack and Jack J. Taffer, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Jesse J. McCrary, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was charged in an information with possession of marijuana. He was tried without a jury, convicted and sentenced to three years’ confinement. On appeal it is contended the court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence consisting of marijuana obtained by the police upon arresting him for public drunkenness. The search revealed a match box which, when examined, was found to contain marijuana. Appellant contends the search could not lawfully extend to opening the match box found in his possession, and therefore the search was not incident to the arrest, and the arrest was incident to the search. We can not agree. On the facts disclosed the search was incident to his arrest for public drunkenness, and the subsequent charge and prosecution for possession of marijuana found on such search were proper under § 901.21(1) Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Brown v. State, Fla.1950, 46 So.2d 479.

No reversible error having been made to appear the judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 2 to Annual
                                                             Report On Form 10-K
                                                              For the Year Ended
                                                               December 31, 1996

                                   April  22, 1996

Mr. Charles J. Hinkaty
c/o Del Laboratories, Inc.
565 Broad Hollow Road
Farmingdale, New York  11735

Dear Mr. Hinkaty:

            This will confirm that your Employment Agreement, as amended and
extended, is further extended to March 31, 1999.

            In all other respects the Employment Agreement, as amended and
extended, shall continue in full force and effect. Other changes to the
Employment Agreement may be made at a later date.

            Please signify your agreement with the foregoing by counter-signing
the copy of this letter and returning it to me.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        DEL LABORATORIES, INC.


                                        By: /s/ Dan K. Wassong
                                            ---------------------
                                            Dan K. Wassong
                                            Chairman of the Board

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:


/s/ Charles J. Hinkaty
----------------------
Charles J. Hinkaty
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 (the “Report”) of New Mountain Finance Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert A. Hamwee, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.




/s/ ROBERT A. HAMWEEName:Robert A. HamweeDate:May 4, 2016
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3051

AN ACT

To provide that certain property located in the

Law 874, 81st Congress).under the Act of September 30, 1950 (Public housing shall be treated as Federal propertyauthority for the purpose of providing low-incomeState of Oklahoma owned by an Indian housing
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3051

AN ACT

To provide that certain property located in the State of

Oklahoma owned by an Indian housing authority for

the purpose of providing low-income housing shall be

treated as Federal property under the Act of September

30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress).

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 3051 EH

1 SECTION 1. CERTAIN PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF OKLA2 HOMA OWNED BY INDIAN HOUSING AUTHOR3 ITY FOR PURPOSE OF PROVIDING LOW-IN4 COME HOUSING TREATED AS FEDERAL PROP5 ERTY UNDER PUBLIC LAW 874, 81ST CON6 GRESS.

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Any real property located in the

8 State of Oklahoma that—

9 (1) is owned by an Indian housing authority

10 and used for low-income housing (including housing

11 assisted under the mutual help homeownership op12 portunity program under section 202 of the United

13 States Housing Act of 1937), and

14 (2) at any time prior to the date of the enact15 ment of this Act—

16 (A) was designated by treaty as tribal

17 land, or

18 (B) satisfied the definition of Federal

19 property under section 403(1)(A) of the Act of

20 September 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st

21 Congress),

22 shall be treated as Federal property under such section.

23 (b) APPLICABILITY.—Subsection (a) shall apply only

24 with respect to payments made under the Act of Septem-
3

•HR 3051 EH

1 ber 30, 1950 (Public Law 874, 81st Congress) for fiscal

2 year 1994.

Passed the House of Representatives September 21,

1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Advanced  Cellular,  Inc.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended  December 31, 2010,  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,   as  the  Principal  Executive  Officer  of  the  Company,  hereby
certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section
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.


By: /s/ Nir Eliyahu
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Nir Eliyahu
    President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Director
    (Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer, Principal
    Accounting Officer)
    February 2, 2011
# C_2011374EN.01000601.xml

| 22.12.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 374/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 374/6

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 December 2011

2011/C 374/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3054 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 101,66 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4339 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83230 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0021 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2190 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,7520 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,618 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 302,38 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4568 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,3063 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,4594 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2943 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3422 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1578 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6987 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6927 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 502,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,6929 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2734 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5168 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 841,23 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1362 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,977 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 41,4525 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,820 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,4223 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,0666 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,7750 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3054

JPY

Japanese yen

101,66

DKK

Danish krone

7,4339

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83230

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0021

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2190

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,7520

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,618

HUF

Hungarian forint

302,38

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4568

RON

Romanian leu

4,3063

TRY

Turkish lira

2,4594

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2943

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3422

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1578

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6987

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6927

KRW

South Korean won

1 502,28

ZAR

South African rand

10,6929

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2734

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5168

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 841,23

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1362

PHP

Philippine peso

56,977

RUB

Russian rouble

41,4525

THB

Thai baht

40,820

BRL

Brazilian real

2,4223

MXN

Mexican peso

18,0666

INR

Indian rupee

68,7750

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
257 La. 980

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joe Mack COUTEE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 51228.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 3, 1971.

In re: Joe Mack Coutee applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Writs denied. Showing made indicates no error by district court on evidentiary hearing held.
# C_2014005EN.01000301.xml

| 9.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

8 January 2014

2014/C 5/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3594 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 142,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4605 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,82770 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,8964 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2383 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4110 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,448 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 300,35 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1767 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4926 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9581 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5212 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4692 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,5416 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6373 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7262 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 450,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,4990 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2249 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6290 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 371,55 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4526 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,723 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,0019 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,906 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,2246 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7055 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 84,3200 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3594

JPY

Japanese yen

142,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4605

GBP

Pound sterling

0,82770

SEK

Swedish krona

8,8964

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2383

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4110

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,448

HUF

Hungarian forint

300,35

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1767

RON

Romanian leu

4,4926

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9581

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5212

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4692

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,5416

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6373

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7262

KRW

South Korean won

1 450,38

ZAR

South African rand

14,4990

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2249

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6290

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 371,55

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4526

PHP

Philippine peso

60,723

RUB

Russian rouble

45,0019

THB

Thai baht

44,906

BRL

Brazilian real

3,2246

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7055

INR

Indian rupee

84,3200

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
EXHIBIT 32.2





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER





PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)





In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2016 (the “Report”) of New Mountain Finance Corporation (the “Registrant”), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Shiraz Y. Kajee, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





|    |                                                                                                                                  
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 Registrant.




/s/ SHIRAZ Y. KAJEEName:Shiraz Y. KajeeDate:August 3, 2016
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1014

In re: PERCY JAMES TUCKER,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:09-cr-00182-AWA-DEM-1)

Submitted: May 7, 2020 Decided: June 2, 2020

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Percy James Tucker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Percy James Tucker petitions for a writ of mandamus in his closed criminal case. 

He seeks an order from this court directing the clerk to act. “[M]andamus is a drastic 

remedy that must be reserved for extraordinary situations.” In re Murphy-Brown, LLC, 

907 F.3d 788, 795 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “Courts 

provide mandamus relief only when (1) petitioner ‘ha[s] no other adequate means to attain 

the relief [he] desires’; (2) petitioner has shown a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to the 

requested relief; and (3) the court deems the writ ‘appropriate under the circumstances.’” 

Id. (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). The writ of 

mandamus is not a substitute for appeal after final judgment. Will v. United States, 389 

U.S. 90, 97 (1967); In re Lockheed Martin Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). 

We have reviewed Tucker’s petition and conclude that he fails to show he is entitled 

to the requested relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. While 

this petition was pending, Tucker also filed a motion for home confinement seeking his 

release from prison based on the risks associated with the COVID-19 virus. We deny the 

motion without prejudice to Tucker re-filing his motion in the district court, which should 

consider the motion in the first instance, and without prejudice to Tucker filing another 

mandamus petition if he is barred from filing his motion in the district court. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PRESIDIO COMPONENTS, INC., Plaintiff

- Appellant

v.

AMERICAN TECHNICAL C ERAMICS CORP., Defendant

- Cross

- Appellant

______________________

2018

- 2380, 2018

- 2381

______________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in No. 3:14

- cv

- 02061

- H

BGS, Senior Judge Marilyn L. Huff.

_________________ _____

JUDGMENT

______________________

G REGORY F. A HRENS , Wood, Herron & Evans, LLP, Cincinnati, OH, argued for plaintiff

- appellant. Also represented by B RETT A. S CHATZ

.

R ONALD E. C AHILL , Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP, Boston, MA, argued for defendant

- cross

- appellant. Also represented by H EATHER B. R EPICKY ; P ETER F. S NELL

, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., New York, NY.

______________________T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (D YK

, T ARANTO

, and S TOLL

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

November 13, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court