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

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          11,483
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                              97
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                14,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     74,877
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        205,511
<ALLOWANCE>                                      4,062
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 308,106
<DEPOSITS>                                     229,141
<SHORT-TERM>                                     5,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              2,150
<LONG-TERM>                                     24,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        23,542
<OTHER-SE>                                      23,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 308,106
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 15,995
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,354
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   626
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                20,975
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               8,121
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,053
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           11,922
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      106
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  (5)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  8,845
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,646
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,646
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,501
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .85
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.65
<LOANS-NON>                                        291
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    349
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,646
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      772
<RECOVERIES>                                       990
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                4,062
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,192
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            870


</TABLE>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-25,679-49

IN RE ARTHUR DAVID LOWE, Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. 507052 IN THE 183RD DISTRICT COURT

FROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file a writ of mandamus pursuant to the original

jurisdiction of this Court. In it, he contends that he wrote to the Harris County District Clerk

requesting an estimate of the cost to purchase copies of requested records, but received a response

citing to Section 552.028 of the Texas Government Code, stating that the Clerk’s Office did not have

to accept or comply with a request from a person imprisoned or confined in a correctional facility. 

In these circumstances, additional facts are needed. Respondent, the District Clerk of Harris

County, is ordered to file a response stating whether he received a request from the Relator for a

statement of costs for his records. If the District Clerk received such a request, he shall state the
2

nature of his response and, if available, provide a copy of the response. If the District Clerk received

such a request and did not respond, he shall provide his rationale for not responding. This application

for leave to file a writ of mandamus shall be held in abeyance until Respondent has submitted the

appropriate response. Such response shall be submitted within 30 days of the date of this order.

Filed: August 11, 2021

Do not publish
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
      AND 15d-14(b)**


**(Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Southern Sauce Company, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert
      C. Scherne, certify, 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
      and belief:





(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 the operation of the
      Company.





/s/*Robert
                C. Scherne*(Principal
                Financial Officer)
              Southern
                Sauce Company, Inc.




This
      certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 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 Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned promise to pay the order of Frezer Inc., the sum of twenty thousand and no/100ths US Dollars ($20,000), together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum on the unpaid balance.



Said principal and interest shall be payable as follows:



1.  Principle is due December 30, 2006 and is Payable US Dollars and / or securities acceptable to Frezer's Board of Directors,



2.  Interest is due semi-annually from the date of the execution of this agreement and is payable in US Dollars and / or securities acceptable to Frezer's Board of Directors,



3.  This note may be called, extended or modified by approval of the Board of Directors of Frezer Inc., with thirty days (30 days) written notice to borrower.



4.  There is no pre-payment penalty should borrower decide to pay note off before the stated maturity date. Interest shall be calculated on a pro rata basis should note be paid off prior to maturity.



The undersigned may prepay this Note in whole or in part without penalty. In the event any payment due hereunder is not paid when due, the entire balance shall be immediately due and payable upon demand of the holder. Upon default, the undersigned shall pay all reasonable attorney fees and costs necessary for the collection of this Note,



This Note is executed to evidence an existing indebtedness due the payee from the undersigned on an open account balance as of this date, and this Note shall not be construed as a separate obligation.



Signed in agreement this 16th day of January, 2006,



AFN Business Trust

(Borrower's name)



/s/David Koos

Borrowers  Signature
#### F. E. Williams and J. R. Williams, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Ferdinand Bayer and Robert E. Davis, special partners doing business in Alachua County, Florida, under the name and style of Ferdinand Bayer and Robert E. Davis, Defendants in Error.

Division B.

Writ of error to Circuit Court,- Alachua county; William A. Hockerj Judge.

*640Jackson & Thomas for plaintiffs in error.

No appearance for defendants in error.

This action was brought by the defendants in error against-the plaintiffs in error. There was judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendants take writ of error. The judgment is affirmed.

Decision *Per Curiam.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS FORM 10-K IS A TRANSITION REPORT FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1,
1998 TO DECEMBER 31, 1998, WHICH IS THE COMPANY'S NEW FISCAL YEAR END.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          19,418
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,680
<ALLOWANCES>                                       637
<INVENTORY>                                      2,505
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                45,102
<PP&E>                                          72,612
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,150
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  92,851
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,345
<BONDS>                                         22,080
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           217
<OTHER-SE>                                      54,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    92,851
<SALES>                                         28,328
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,328
<CGS>                                           20,327
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (212)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   174
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 475
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (826)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       594
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,420)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,420)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)
        

</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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of United China Acquisition I Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report"), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Casey
K. Tjang, President, Chairman and Principal Accounting and Financial Officerf of
the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.



Dated: February 8, 2006

                                    /s/ Casey K. Tjang
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Casey K. Tjang
                                    President and Chairman of the Board
                                    (Principal Accounting and Financial Officer)
Good afternoon,

John is not available today but I can answer your questions.

1. No, we have no regularly scheduled outages where all three furnaces are down at the

same time. There are jobs that do require all furnaces or the whole plant to be down to

complete, but the periodicity between these jobs is over a year. We operate the plant

24/7, 365 days a year, holidays and weekends included.

2. We would plan for 12-16 hours downtime when we had jobs that required all

furnaces down at the same time.

3. What you referred to as less routine plant-wide shutdowns are in reality more

common than any planned plant-wide shutdowns. During a curtailment we normally get

about 1-2 hours from our power company, but they are only required to give us ten minute

notification of a curtailment. These usually last 2-4 hours. We also have non-mandatory

peak power price curtailments where we technically could buy power and stay running. We

get 24 hour notification for these and depending on the level we have shut down

operations for them. These also usually last 2-4 hours.

I hope this answers your questions.

ShawnFrom: Beth Friedman [mailto:friedman .beth@ecrweb.com]

Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2012 2:43 PM

To: John Konrady; Shawn R. McCutchan

Cc: Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov; Boswell.Colin@epamail.epa.gov; Averback.Jonathan@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Plant operations schedule

Hi John—

Can you tell me if the plant has any regularly scheduled period when all furnaces are shut down? What

about when all production operations are shut down? Say at Christmas? If so, what is the length of the

shutdown?

Are there any less routine plant-wide shutdowns? Say when the power company tells you to shutdown

to conserve electricity? How much warning do you have of such events and how long do they last?

Thanks.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Supreme Court No. DA-22-0054

__________________________________________________________________

SHANDOR S. BADARUDDIN,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF MONTANA, and the 

NINETEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, 

HONORABLE MATTHEW CUFFE, Presiding.

Appellees.

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

__________________________________________________________________

Upon consideration of the Motion of Amicus Curiae, the National 

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, (NACDL), and with no objection from

the parties, Appellant Shandor S. Badaruddin, and Appellees State of Montana and 

the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, and good cause appearing therefore, said 

Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

The Clerk of the Supreme Court is directed to file the Amicus Brief of the 

National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers attached to the Motion.

Electronically signed below: 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2022

10/05/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0054
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 10743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4386]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

AGENCY: Federal Election Commission.

DATE & TIME: Tuesday, February 28, 2012 at 10 a.m.

PLACE: 999 E Street NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS: This meeting will be closed to the public.

Items To Be Discussed

Compliance matters pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g.
Audits conducted pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 437g, Sec.  438(b), and Title 26, 
U.S.C.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or 
arbitration.
Internal personnel rules and procedures or matters affecting a 
particular employee.
* * * * *

PERSON TO CONTACT FOR INFORMATION: Judith Ingram, Press Officer.
    Telephone: (202) 694-1220.

Shelley E. Garr,
Deputy Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2012-4386 Filed 2-21-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6715-01-P
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Cory Martin Colvin, Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00163

- CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 115th District Court of Upshur County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 16,601 ). Opinion delivered by J ustice Moseley, Chief

Justice Morriss and Justice Burgess participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant, Cory Martin Colvin, has adequately indicated his inability to

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED MAY 12, 2 015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Jfourtlj Court of

J5>an gntomo,

October 11,2013

No. 04-13-00385-CR

Daniel LOPEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR7475B

Honorable Mary D. Roman, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant's motion for suspension and recalculation of deadline for filing brief is

GRANTED. Because the exhibits requested by appellant were filed on October 8, 2013,

appellant's brief is due on November 7, 2013.

CUue/i^ Karen Angclini, Justi$

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this lth day of October, 2013.

i< O/ 5O/

Keith E. Mottle

Clerk of Court
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Roger Arnet, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of WestCoast Golf
     Experiences, Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
26th day of February, 2007.


/s/ Roger Arnet
-------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 12086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4583]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


2002 Reopened--Previously Denied Determinations; Notice of 
Revised Denied Determinations On Reconsideration Under the Trade 
Adjustment Assistance Extension Act of 2011 Regarding Eligibility to 
Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(19 U.S.C. 2273) (Act) the Department of Labor (Department) herein 
presents summaries of revised determinations on reconsideration 
regarding eligibility to apply for Trade Adjustment Assistance for 
workers by case (TA-W-) number regarding negative determinations issued 
during the period of February 13, 2011 through October 21, 2011. 
Notices of negative determinations were published in the Federal 
Register and on the Department's Web site, as required by Section 221 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2271). As required by the Trade Adjustment 
Assistance Extension Act of 2011 (TAAEA), all petitions that were 
denied during this time period were automatically reconsidered. The 
reconsideration investigation revealed that the following workers 
groups have met the certification criteria under the provisions of 
TAAEA.
    After careful review of the additional facts obtained, the 
following revised determinations on reconsideration have been issued.

TA-W-80,125; Shine Electronics Co., Inc., Long Island City, NY: 
February 7, 2010.

    I hereby certify that the aforementioned revised determinations 
on reconsideration were issued on February 8, 2012. These 
determinations are available on the Department's Web site at 
tradeact/taa/taa--search--form.cfm under the searchable listing of 
determinations or by calling the Office of Trade Adjustment 
Assistance toll-free at 888-365-6822.

     Dated February 13, 2012.
Del Min Amy Chen,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2012-4583 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P